‘Zip coding’ is the new viral dating trend on the block

But from a psychological standpoint, can geographical proximity actually help foster stronger emotional connections?

Psychologist Rasshi Gurnani tells indianexpress.com, “Geographical proximity often enhances emotional intimacy because it allows for shared routines, spontaneous interactions, and a sense of safety derived from familiarity. From a psychological standpoint, proximity encourages the “mere exposure effect,” where repeated encounters naturally build comfort and affection. People tend to feel more connected when daily experiences—like favourite cafés, routes, or social spaces—overlap, reinforcing attachment and trust.” 

However, she adds that this comfort can also limit personal growth if it prevents individuals from exploring diverse perspectives or relationships that challenge their worldview. Emotional security born of proximity can deepen bonds, but it must be balanced with openness to experiences beyond one’s immediate circle to avoid emotional complacency.

What does this trend reveal about underlying biases in modern dating? 

When dating choices subtly align with socioeconomic or geographic markers, Gurnani states, it exposes an unconscious bias rooted in social identity theory—the tendency to affiliate with those perceived as part of the same “ingroup.” Choosing partners from certain zip codes can become a coded way of seeking financial or cultural compatibility, often tied to class aspirations rather than emotional resonance.

“Such filtering can reinforce existing social hierarchies and reduce empathy for differing lifestyles. To stay mindful, individuals should recognise the difference between shared values and shared status. Psychological awareness involves questioning whether attraction stems from a genuine emotional connection or from symbolic cues of success and stability,” notes Gurnani. 

Can such zip-coded arrangements ever be emotionally healthy and sustainable?

Zip-coded relationship arrangements reflect a growing normalisation of situational intimacy. Gurnani says that while autonomy and flexibility can feel empowering, “such dynamics can also create cognitive dissonance between emotional attachment and behavioural freedom.” Inconsistent relational boundaries increase vulnerability to jealousy, miscommunication, and attachment anxiety. 

“For these arrangements to be healthy, both partners must possess high emotional maturity, secure attachment styles, and clearly defined communication patterns. Without these, the relationship risks emotional fragmentation, where proximity dictates affection rather than emotional continuity. Sustainable intimacy thrives on psychological consistency, not geographic convenience,” concludes the expert.