Single i Norge: fakta og tall om nettdating

How many singles are there actually in Norge? How do they use dating-apps? And what do the figures tell us about the state of modern love? This article compiles the most recent data from research, university studies and international reports.

Single i Norge: tallene

Ifølge SSB (Statistisk sentralbyrå), Norge has over 3 million single-person households. That is nearly 40 prosent of all households. Not all of these people are actively looking for a partner, but it gives an idea of the scale. The growth of single-person households is a trend that has been ongoing for decades, driven by an ageing population, later forhold formation and more divorces.

In the 25 to 45 age group — the most active dating population — an estimated 30 to 35 prosent are single. That is hundreds of thousands of people who are potentially open to a new forhold. Research by Statista shows that around 60 prosent of norske single have used a dating-app at some point.

How the Dutch date online

Tinder is still the most widely used dating-app in Norge, followed by Bumble, Hinge and the norsk plattforms Sukker and Match.com. The average user spends 30 to 90 minutes a day on dating-apps. Men sveip more broadly (an average of 46 prosent to the right), women more selectively (an average of 14 prosent).

This asymmetry creates an unequal experience. Women are flooded with matcher and messages, leading to valgoverbelastning and selectivity. Men receive few matcher, leading to frustration and a downward spiral in self-confidence. Both sides experience the system as unsatisfying, albeit for different reasons.

Interesting is the growth of niche platforms. E-Matching and Parship target higher-educated users. Muzz serves the Muslim community. Grindr the LGBTQ+ community. And an increasing number of apps, including Onedayte, focus on daters who seek depth rather than volume.

Hva som ikke fungerer: baksiden av tallene

Research by Timmermans and Opree (2019), conducted at Universitetet i Oslo, shows that 85 prosent of norsk dating-app users have been ghosted at some point. 63 prosent have ghosted someone themselves. 15 prosent of users display addiction-like behaviour. And prolonged use is associated with a more negative self-image and increased feelings of loneliness.

A study by KU Leuven confirms that dating-apps have an ambiguous effect on users' well-being. They increase the number of encounters but reduce their quality. They give a sense of control but simultaneously create valgoverbelastning and FOMO. They promise connection but facilitate superficiality.

Skiftet mot kvalitet

There is a growing counter-movement. More and more daters are consciously choosing platforms that facilitate depth rather than volume. The term sakte dating is gaining popularity. Dating-apps that match on personality or tilknytningsstil rather than on appearance are growing faster than traditional sveip apps.

This shift fits within a broader societal trend. After years of optimisation, efficiency and quantity in all areas of life, the need for mindfulness, depth and quality is growing. In food (slow food), in work (the four-day working week), and now also in dating.

A telling figure illustrates this shift. Ifølge the Dating Burnout Report by Hinge, more than 50 prosent of active users experience burnout symptoms. The generation that grew up with Tinder is also the generation most urgently seeking alternatives. They know the downsides from personal experience: the dopamine loops, the ghosting, the valgoverbelastning, the declining self-confidence. And they are willing to invest more in an approach that is evidence-based and that actually works.

Another striking figure: ifølge research by Universitetet i Oslo, dating-app users who have been active for more than a year become less selective in their matcher but not happier. They lower their expectations without increasing their satisfaction. That is the opposite of what a dating-app should do. A good platform should give you better matcher over time, not lower expectations. That insight underscores the need for a fundamentally different model: not more of the same, but better from less.

Sources: SSB, Statista, research overview