The Paradox of Choice in Dating — Why More Options Feel Worse
The evidence
What the research actually shows
The idea was popularized by Barry Schwartz's (2004) book 'The Paradox of Choice,' which distinguishes maximizers, who exhaustively search for the single best option, from satisficers, who pick the first option that meets their standards. Across domains, maximizers tend to make objectively fine choices yet feel worse about them — plagued by regret and the nagging sense that something better was out there. Applied to dating, a maximizing mindset can turn a promising partner into a source of doubt.
The classic demonstration of choice overload is Iyengar and Lepper's (2000) 'jam study,' in which shoppers offered a display of 24 jams were far less likely to actually buy than those shown just 6 — despite being more drawn to the larger display. More options generated interest but paralyzed action and lowered satisfaction. The parallel in dating is direct: an endless roster of profiles can feel exciting yet make it harder to choose anyone and easier to second-guess the choice.
Studies specific to dating echo this. Lenton and Francesconi's (2010) analysis of speed-dating found that when people faced larger sets of potential partners, they relied more on quick, superficial heuristics and less on careful, considered evaluation. And D'Angelo and Toma (2017) found that online daters given more options tended to be less satisfied with their choice over time and more likely to want to reverse it — the very abundance that promises a better match can undermine commitment to the one made.
Good enough, chosen and committed to, usually outperforms perfect, endlessly sought.
The mechanism
Why this happens
More options raise expectations and the cost of settling. When the pool feels limitless, any choice carries the shadow of everything not chosen, so satisfaction is measured not against being alone but against an imagined perfect alternative that always seems one more swipe away. That comparison is a recipe for chronic mild disappointment, no matter how good the actual partner is.
Abundance also fragments attention. Evaluating many candidates is cognitively taxing, so people fall back on fast, surface-level filters — a photo, a height, a single line of a bio — and give less weight to the harder-to-see qualities that actually predict a good relationship. The format nudges us toward shopping for people, which flattens the slow, in-person process by which real compatibility reveals itself.
Finally, keeping options open feels rational but quietly corrodes commitment. Research on decision reversibility suggests that people are often happier with choices they cannot easily undo, because they stop second-guessing and start investing. Dating apps do the opposite: they keep the exit door propped open, which can make it harder to fully commit to getting to know one person and easier to bail at the first friction.
In practice
What this looks like in real life
Someone matches with a warm, interesting person and has a genuinely good first date — then finds themselves back on the app that night, wondering if someone even better is out there. The abundance is not helping them; it is converting a good outcome into a comparison they cannot win, which is exactly the maximizer's trap.
A person scrolling hundreds of profiles notices they have started evaluating people in seconds on a single photo, barely reading bios. This is the heuristic shift Lenton and Francesconi described: faced with too many options, careful judgment gives way to snap filtering, and thoughtful qualities get lost in the volume.
Two friends compare notes: one deleted the apps after deciding to give a promising match a real chance, and reports feeling more content; the other keeps a full roster going 'just in case' and feels perpetually restless. The difference maps onto satisficing versus maximizing — the same abundance that feels like security to one feels like a treadmill to the other.
By the numbers
Figures come from the studies cited at the end of this page. Numbers describe group averages and study samples, not rules about individuals.
Myth vs. evidence
What most people get wrong about this
The core misconception is that more options must mean better outcomes — that a bigger dating pool can only improve your odds. The research complicates this: past a modest point, extra choice tends to lower satisfaction, encourage superficial filtering, and weaken commitment. The problem is not that good partners are scarce; it is that abundance changes how we evaluate and how we feel about whoever we choose. Quantity and contentment often pull in opposite directions.
People also mistake restlessness for a signal that they simply have not found 'the one.' Sometimes it is a compatibility problem — but often it is the maximizing mindset itself, which manufactures doubt regardless of the partner. Recognizing that the endless-options environment reliably produces a 'grass is greener' feeling helps separate genuine incompatibility from the ambient dissatisfaction the format creates.
Why it matters
What this means for relationships
The most practical antidote is to satisfice deliberately: decide in advance what genuinely matters to you, and when someone clears that bar, invest in getting to know them rather than continuing to shop. Narrowing the field on purpose — fewer conversations pursued more seriously — tends to lead to better decisions and more satisfaction than keeping an endless roster half-alive. Good enough, chosen and committed to, usually outperforms perfect, endlessly sought.
It also helps to notice and resist the pull to keep options open once you have found someone worth real attention. Giving a promising connection undivided focus — even temporarily stepping back from the apps — lets the slow signals of compatibility emerge and reduces the corrosive comparison to imagined alternatives. This is about protecting your own capacity for contentment, not about settling for someone who is wrong for you.
Maximizing vs. satisficing in dating
A side-by-side contrast to make the distinction concrete — patterns and tendencies, not rigid rules.
| Aspect | Maximizing | Satisficing |
|---|---|---|
| Goal when choosing | Find the single best possible partner | Choose someone who clears your real standards |
| How options feel | More choices feel like more pressure and doubt | Enough good options feel freeing, then settled |
| After choosing | Lingering regret and comparison to alternatives | Investment and greater contentment |
| Commitment | Keeps options open, weakening focus | Commits, letting compatibility emerge |
Where it varies
The nuance
Choice overload is real but not universal, and the research has been debated. Some studies find strong effects and others weaker ones, and the impact depends on the person and the context — maximizers feel it far more than satisficers, and the tendency exists on a spectrum rather than as a fixed type. Having options is not inherently bad; a reasonable range of choices is genuinely useful. The trouble comes at the extremes of near-infinite, frictionless options.
It is also worth being fair to modern dating. Apps have expanded access enormously, helped many people meet who never would have, and are not the sole cause of dating frustration. The paradox-of-choice lens explains one real mechanism — why abundance can feel oddly worse — without claiming it explains everything. The balanced takeaway is that options are a tool: valuable in moderation, draining in excess, and best managed by knowing your own standards and being willing to actually choose.
Key takeaways
- Beyond a modest point, more dating options tend to lower satisfaction rather than raise it — quantity and contentment often diverge.
- Choice overload, shown in the jam study, means abundance can excite interest yet paralyze decisions and breed second-guessing.
- Large option sets push people toward superficial filtering, crowding out the harder-to-see qualities that predict good relationships.
- Keeping options endlessly open quietly corrodes commitment; happiness often rises when a choice is made and invested in.
- Satisficing — knowing your standards and choosing 'good enough' rather than chasing the theoretical best — protects both commitment and contentment.
Questions people ask about this
What is the paradox of choice in dating?
It is the finding that beyond a certain point, more romantic options can make people less happy, not more. Drawing on Schwartz's work, it describes how abundant choice — like an endless feed of profiles — can make choosing harder, lower satisfaction with whoever we pick, and tempt us to keep looking.
Why do dating apps sometimes feel worse the more matches you have?
Because abundance raises expectations and invites constant comparison to imagined better options. Research like the jam study shows more choices can excite interest yet paralyze decisions and lower satisfaction. On apps, that translates into second-guessing and a persistent grass-is-greener feeling.
What is the difference between a maximizer and a satisficer?
A maximizer searches exhaustively for the single best option, while a satisficer picks the first choice that meets their standards. Research suggests maximizers often make fine choices yet feel worse about them due to regret. In dating, a satisficing mindset tends to support more contentment and commitment.
Does having more options make me pickier or shallower?
It can nudge people toward superficial filtering. Lenton and Francesconi (2010) found that larger sets of potential partners led daters to rely more on quick heuristics like photos and less on careful evaluation. The volume itself tends to crowd out attention to harder-to-see, relationship-relevant qualities.
How can I avoid choice overload while dating?
Deciding in advance what genuinely matters to you and then satisficing helps — when someone clears that bar, invest in knowing them rather than continuing to shop. Pursuing fewer connections more seriously, and stepping back from constant browsing once you find someone promising, tends to improve both decisions and satisfaction.
Are dating apps bad because of the paradox of choice?
Not entirely. Apps have widened access and helped many people meet, and choice overload is only one mechanism among many. The research suggests abundance is draining mainly at the extremes of near-infinite options. Managed with clear standards and a willingness to actually commit, options remain a useful tool.
Research sources
These references point to the published research and established frameworks behind this page. They are provided for further reading; see our research methodology for how sources are selected.
- Schwartz, B. (2004). The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less. HarperCollins.
- Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 995–1006.
- Lenton, A. P., & Francesconi, M. (2010). How humans cognitively manage an abundance of mate options. Psychological Science, 21(4), 528–533.
- D'Angelo, J. D., & Toma, C. L. (2017). There are plenty of fish in the sea: The effects of choice overload and reversibility on online daters' satisfaction with selected partners. Media Psychology, 20(1), 1–27.
- Schwartz, B., Ward, A., Monterosso, J., Lyubomirsky, S., White, K., & Lehman, D. R. (2002). Maximizing versus satisficing: Happiness is a matter of choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(5), 1178–1197.
Last reviewed by the Men Women Psychology editorial team.
Written and reviewed by the Men Women Psychology Editorial Team against our editorial standards. This article is educational and is not a substitute for professional advice.