Barry Schwartz coined the phrase "the paradox of choice" in 2004, and it's never been more relevant than it is to modern dating. His core argument: beyond a certain threshold, more options don't make us happier or better at deciding — they make us paralysed, dissatisfied, and prone to constantly wondering whether we made the right choice.
Dating apps have built their entire product on the premise that more options are better. The more profiles you can swipe through, the better your chances. The logic sounds right. It isn't. What's actually happened is that millions of people have been handed a virtually unlimited pool of potential partners and found themselves less able to commit to anyone than they were when the pool was smaller.
This isn't a character flaw. It's a predictable cognitive response to conditions that human decision-making wasn't designed for.
What the research actually shows
Sheena Iyengar and Mark Lepper's famous supermarket study offered shoppers either 6 or 24 varieties of jam. The larger display attracted more initial interest — but shoppers presented with 6 options were ten times more likely to actually make a purchase. More choice created more browsing and less deciding. The same dynamic applies directly to dating platforms: more profiles to swipe generates more engagement, but less commitment.
Schwartz identifies two decision-making styles. Maximisers try to make the objectively best choice — they need to survey all options before committing. Satisficers make good-enough decisions based on clear criteria. In a world of limited options, maximising isn't especially costly. On a dating app with millions of profiles, maximising becomes a trap: the optimal choice is always theoretically one swipe away. Research consistently finds maximisers less satisfied with their eventual choices than satisficers, not because they choose worse, but because they're always comparing against a hypothetical better option they didn't take.
What this looks like in dating specifically
You're browsing more than engaging
You open the app, you look at profiles, you occasionally match — but the actual conversations, the dates, the sustained effort to get to know someone: those are happening rarely if at all. Browsing feels productive. It isn't. It's the activity of someone who believes the perfect option is still out there and doesn't want to invest in something good in case something better comes up. See also: why dating apps don't actually want you to find love.
You downgrade people quickly
Someone looks promising until a minor thing puts you off — and rather than working with it or asking whether it matters, you unmatch or stop replying. When options feel infinite, the cost of abandoning one feels low. But this pattern means you're dismissing people on the basis of surface-level signals before you've had the chance to assess genuine compatibility. You're optimising for first impressions rather than what actually makes relationships work.
You feel vaguely dissatisfied even when things are going well
Even when you're seeing someone you like and it's going well, there's a background sense that you might be settling — that someone slightly better suited might still be in the pool. This is anticipatory regret: the feeling that you'll regret a choice you haven't made yet. It's corrosive, and it's produced directly by the perception of infinite alternatives.
You've been dating for years with little to show for it
Not because compatible people don't exist for you — they do. But because the combination of high volume and low commitment has made sustained genuine engagement with any particular person increasingly rare. You've had many first dates. You've had far fewer meaningful attempts at building something with someone.
"The paradox of choice doesn't mean you should settle. It means you should stop treating every potential partner as a variable in an infinite optimisation problem."
Why this is exactly what the apps want
Dating apps are not optimised for users finding relationships — they're optimised for engagement. A user who finds a relationship and leaves is a churned user. A user who stays single and keeps swiping is a retained user. The design of infinite browsing, variable ratio reward (matches arriving unpredictably), and the framing of dating as a numbers game all serve the app's business model, not your search for a partner.
This isn't a conspiracy theory. It's product design working exactly as intended. The question is whether you're playing the game the app wants you to play, or a different one that's actually aimed at what you say you want.
100% free until January 2028
LoveCertain matches you on values, life stage, attachment and communication — the four things that predict a lasting relationship. No card required.
The difference between selectivity and paralysis
It's important to distinguish between two things that can look similar: genuine selectivity (clear about what you need, declining people who clearly won't work) and paradox-of-choice paralysis (declining people who might work because something better might exist).
Genuine selectivity is based on values alignment and real compatibility — you know what you need and you're applying that knowledge. Paralysis is based on optionality anxiety — you're holding off not because this person is wrong but because you can't rule out the existence of someone more right.
The way to tell them apart: when you pass on someone, can you articulate specifically what the genuine issue is? Or is it a general sense that you're not sure? If it's the latter, you may be experiencing paralysis rather than selectivity.
How to actually address it
The clearer you are about what genuinely matters — values, attachment security, life stage alignment, communication style — the less likely you are to be derailed by surface-level variation. Knowing your actual criteria is the antidote to infinite comparison. See: the science of compatibility.
This sounds counterintuitive in a world of infinite options. But it works. Engaging genuinely with two or three people at a time rather than maintaining seventeen conversations forces actual investment. Investment is what creates the conditions for real connection. Breadth without depth is just browsing.
A real chance means more than one date. It means enough sustained interaction to actually see how you feel. Many people who would have been genuinely compatible have been discarded at a stage before compatibility could be assessed, because the cost of doing so felt low and a new option was always available.
Dealbreakers are genuine incompatibilities — different life goals, irreconcilable values, attachment styles that will structurally prevent intimacy. Preferences are just that. The maximiser tendency is to treat preferences like dealbreakers. A satisficer approach separates them clearly. See: chemistry vs. compatibility — which actually matters.
The result of treating dating as an optimisation problem
There's a real cost to spending years in perpetual consideration — to treating every person you meet as a potential variable rather than a potential partner. The research on this is pretty clear: people who eventually find lasting relationships do so not because they surveyed every option but because they invested properly in someone who had the right fundamentals.
The goal isn't the best possible choice. It's a genuinely good one, made with real attention and investment. The paradox of choice is most dangerous not because it keeps people from finding perfect partners — it's because it keeps them from fully committing to good ones.
Weekly insights on attachment, relationships and finding lasting love.
100% free until January 2028
LoveCertain matches you with someone genuinely compatible — on values, life stage, attachment and communication. Free until January 2028, no card required.
