![[Adobe Stock]](https://sp-ao.shortpixel.ai/client/to_webp,q_glossy,ret_img,w_750,h_375/https://www.psypost.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/woman-using-dating-app-750x375.jpg)
A recent study published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships provides evidence that having a larger number of online dating options tends to increase a person’s desire to pursue a relationship with a chosen match. The research suggests that a larger pool of potential partners improves the chances of finding a compatible connection. Finding this better match then boosts dating motivation, challenging the popular idea that having too many options automatically makes online daters distracted.
Today, a majority of people use the internet to find romantic partners, but many report feeling frustrated with the process. A dominant view among scientists has been that dating apps offer an overwhelming number of choices. This abundance is thought to trigger choice overload, a psychological phenomenon where having too many alternatives makes people overly picky and reluctant to settle down.
Some earlier research supported this idea, suggesting that online daters treat potential partners like products on a grocery store shelf. Under this consumer mindset, constantly evaluating new profiles can make users fear they are missing out on a better match. This mindset often leads to lower satisfaction with the person they eventually select.
The authors of the new paper sought to explore a different perspective borrowed from economics. Junwen Hu, a communication researcher at Michigan State University, authored the study alongside David Markowitz, an associate professor of communication at Michigan State University. They theorized that having more options might actually be beneficial for daters.
The researchers noted that the tech industry often assumes users need fewer choices to succeed. “Dating apps tend to limit the number of dating candidates people have, claiming to prevent the paradox of choice (from having too many options to choose from),” the authors explained. “This is related to an old debate in the field: does limiting options (candidates to date) discourage participation? To address that, we conducted two experiments to compare different explanations that have emerged in the literature.”
The scientists viewed online dating as a matching market, which is a system where people with very different traits, interests, and needs search for someone who fits their specific preferences. In this type of market, both parties evaluate each other. Success depends heavily on how well two people align in their goals and lifestyles.
In economics, a concept called the thick market effect suggests that larger markets offer a better chance of finding a highly specific, compatible match. For example, a person looking for a highly specialized job is more likely to find it in a massive city than in a small rural town. The researchers theorized that this same mathematical logic applies to dating apps.
To test these ideas, the researchers conducted two separate online experiments. In the first experiment, they recruited 193 single adults in the United States, aged 21 to 30, through an online survey platform. The sample included a relatively even mix of men and women of various racial backgrounds and sexual orientations.
The participants were told they were testing a new dating website called Date Today. First, the participants answered questions about their demographics, dating preferences, hobbies, and the qualities they desired in a partner. They were then shown a series of realistic dating profiles that matched their preferred gender. All profiles were drawn from a pre-tested database to ensure they looked authentic.
The scientists randomly assigned the participants to one of two conditions. The low-option group viewed a selection of six profiles, while the high-option group viewed a selection of thirty-one profiles. After browsing the options on a single page, each participant had to select one person they would like to go on a date with.
The researchers then measured the participants’ immediate intention to pursue a relationship with their choice. They also measured the participants’ general readiness to commit to a relationship. To understand the psychological mechanisms at play, the scientists asked participants to rate how picky they felt, how compatible they thought they were with their chosen match, their perceived social status, and their fear of being single.
The findings contradicted the idea that more options lead to less commitment. “Our results run contrary to the conventional wisdom that people should limit their options in online dating,” the researchers said. Participants who saw thirty-one profiles reported a greater intention to pursue a relationship with their selected match compared to those who saw only six profiles.
The high-option group did not show a difference in general commitment readiness in this first study, but their immediate desire to date their chosen match was noticeably higher.
The researchers analyzed the data to understand the psychological mechanisms behind this boost in motivation. They found that participants in the high-option group felt a stronger sense of compatibility with the person they chose. This sense of perceived compatibility directly predicted their desire to pursue a date.
The scientists did not find evidence that seeing more profiles made participants overly picky. Seeing many profiles also did not impact the participants’ perceived social status or their fear of being single. The positive effect of finding a compatible match seemed to outweigh any negative effects of choice overload.
To confirm these findings, the authors conducted a second experiment with a larger group of 342 single adults aged 18 to 35. To ensure the results applied to real-world scenarios, the researchers only included participants who were actively using dating apps. The procedures mirrored the first experiment, but the scientists refined their questionnaires to include a measure for perceived similarity.
The second experiment replicated the outcomes of the first. Participants who chose from thirty-one profiles showed greater relationship pursuit intention than those who chose from six. In this larger study, the high-option group also demonstrated higher general commitment readiness.
Once again, the data pointed to compatibility as the driving force. Seeing more profiles allowed participants to find someone they perceived as highly compatible and highly similar to themselves. This strong sense of similarity provided the motivation to pursue a meaningful connection.
“Online daters can be harmed by having overly limited options; they are more willing to date someone if they choose that person from more abundant options,” Hu and Markowitz told PsyPost. “This effect is found in our design where we ask users to clarify their preferences before the online dating session.”
The authors suggest that these results carry practical weight for the tech industry and for users seeking romance. “Our findings have important implications for users and platforms,” the researchers noted. “Our findings suggest that online daters can be more engaged when seeking a date from where options are adequate rather than limiting.”
As with all research, there are some caveats to consider. It might be easy to assume that limitless options are always better, but the researchers only measured immediate reactions right after a participant selected a profile. Real-world dating involves interacting over time, and a person’s satisfaction with their choice might change after a few days of chatting.
The experimental setup also forced participants to choose one specific profile from a single, static page of options. Actual dating apps often involve continuously swiping through one profile at a time, which might trigger different psychological responses. Additionally, testing a pool of hundreds of profiles against a pool of thirty might reveal a breaking point where choice overload finally takes over.
“Our finding should be interpreted in a very specific context: daters were instructed to choose one person to date, immediate response was asked (would they interact with a chosen match or not), preferences were clarified before the selection, and traits and preferences of candidates were randomly varied,” the authors explained.
Moving forward, the scientists plan to continue exploring how digital environments shape romantic connections. They aim to incorporate economic principles into broader communication theories to understand modern matchmaking.
“We hope that this work can lead to a working theory of mediated relationship search, one that reconsiders the role of insights from market economics,” the researchers said. “As communication scholars, we often examine how people make meaning out of social interactions at the micro level. However, we hope that structural forces (that are not altered by individual intentions, like market design) could be factored in this equation as well.”
The authors also see opportunities to apply these insights outside the laboratory to help improve user experiences on actual dating applications. “We encourage digital platforms that are interested in improving the well-being of online daters to collaborate with us,” Hu and Markowitz added.
The study, “Re-examining Relational Pursuit and Mate Selection in Online Dating,” was authored by Junwen M. Hu and David M. Markowitz.
