Behavioral data show that couples participating in the smash or pass challenge are prone to trigger emotional risks. A study of 500 couples aged 18-30 (Relationship Psychology Review 2024) shows that when one party scores significantly lower than the other in the game (the gap is ≥ 25th percentile), The median decrease in the Relationship Assessment Scale of the evaluated party within 24 hours was 7.2 points (baseline fluctuation ±2 points), and the probability of disputes occurring within the subsequent 72 hours increased by 38% (baseline probability of 12% in the control group). The Variance of the results of three consecutive tests on the same object by the algorithm often reaches ±15%. This fluctuating score makes 70% of the participants question the objectivity of the results, requiring repeated emotional confirmation from their partners (with a median daily frequency of 3.7 times), which accelerates the consumption of emotional resources.
The risk of privacy leakage amplifies exponentially in two-person scenarios. When the default permission for the application to access the album is allowed (with a user consent rate exceeding 60%), the system may scan and index historical couple photos (with an average inventory of 143 photos per device). In 2023, the Dutch Data Protection Authority (AP) reported a case: An application stored couple selfies uploaded by users on a public server due to an SDK vulnerability (still capable of recognizing faces when the resolution was compressed to 720×540 pixels), resulting in 2.3 million private images being exposed for 97 days. The two-player game will also cross-associate the device ids (IMEI/MAC addresses) and positioning trajectories of both parties (with an accuracy radius of ≤100 meters), expanding the user profile dimension by 300% (the probability of identifying cohabitation relationships is ≥85%), and the unit price of data assets in the black market can reach $0.8 per person (RiskIQ black market monitoring data).
The introduction of external scoring systems erodes the unique foundation of intimate relationships. An experiment conducted by the Stanford University Social Psychology Laboratory (N=300 couples) confirmed that when one party’s algorithmic attractiveness score remains consistently lower than that of their partner (for instance, the other party’s score at the 85th percentile versus their own score at the 40th percentile), their Perceived Equity in the relationship will drop by 31%. And it triggers excessive investment in appearance (such as a 220% increase in the frequency of medical aesthetic consultations within three months). A certain head-mounted smash or pass application was even exposed to have embedded code (line number of code: LLVM-GPU#7821) : Deliberately lower the score by 10 to 15 percentage points when female users test their partner’s photos to stimulate anxiety, thereby increasing the conversion rate of the “Image Optimization Course” (with an average transaction value of $49.99) within the app. When economic benefits take precedence over genuine evaluations (with a rating authenticity deviation rate of ≥18%), the essence of the game has become a commercial trap.
The cost of dispute resolution far exceeds the entertainment benefits. If couples need to verify the accuracy of their ratings through a third party (accounting for 41% of the consultation cases) (such as hiring a professional photographer to retake photos at an average rate of 150 per hour), or purchase psychological counseling to resolve conflicts (120 per session, requiring 4 to 6 sessions), the median economic cost is 780. Even if both parties agree to delete the content, the digital footprint clearance rate is only about 7,235,000 US dollars.
The consensus among psychologists points out that the core of a healthy intimate relationship lies in the construction of Intersubjectivity rather than objectification scoring. In 98% of successful relationships, the frequency density of partners evaluating each other’s appearance is less than once a year (Intimate Relationship Quality Tracking Report). A seemingly harmless smash or pass test, which induces an Increase in emotional Entropy and a decline in trust (about 9.2% annualized), requires more than 47 days of positive interaction to repair. The “attraction standard” defined by algorithms overrides the instinct of emotional connection and is essentially a technical alienation of the relationship. This risk weight far exceeds its 8.2% probability of entertainment gains.