The Tinder Choice Paradox: Why 200 Profiles a Day Makes You Unhappy

Sometimes the most accurate discoveries about love and relationships are made not by psychologists, but by marketers. More precisely, a woman named Sheena Iyengar, who in 2000 decided to find out why people in supermarkets make such bad choices. The experiment was simple. A jam tasting table was set up in a California store. On some days they posted 6 species, on others - 24. More people came to the table with more choice. It’s logical - it’s more interesting there. But they bought it - on the contrary. At the table with 6 types, every third person bought it. At a table with 24 species - every thirtieth. Iyengar formulated a simple conclusion: when there are too many options, a person does not enjoy the choice, but becomes paralyzed. This phenomenon was later called the paradox of choice. Four years later, a book by psychologist Barry Schwartz was published, in which he described in detail what happens in our heads when we see too many options. And—spoiler alert—it sounds a lot like what happens on Tinder. What the Science Says When you have 200 profiles in an evening, your brain falls into three traps at once. The first pitfall is decision paralysis. The more options there are, the longer you can't settle on just one. “Maybe the next one will be better?” As a result, you scroll for an hour and close the application without writing to anyone. If you have three candidates, you choose quickly. If two hundred, you either don’t choose or choose randomly. The second trap is decreased satisfaction with those chosen. When you matched with Olya, another 199 profiles are still spinning in your subconscious. And the brain compares every message from Olya with the hypothetical best one. “What if that girl with the guitar was more interesting?” As a result, Olya no longer seems as wonderful as she did at the time of the swipe. The third pitfall is raising expectations to unrealistic levels. When you have 200 potential partners in your pocket, your brain begins to think that somewhere among them there is an ideal one. Not a “normal person”, but an ideal one - without flaws, exactly matching in all respects. And since there definitely is an ideal person, any real person disappoints. All three traps work simultaneously. So you sit in the evening with three matches and realize: you don’t want to write with any of them. Why the swipe format reinforces the trap If Tinder showed you three profiles a day, there would be almost no choice paradox. But the app is designed to maintain flow. You swipe - next one. Swipe - next one. Each swipe is a small dose of dopamine. The brain wants more. As a result, even when you have a match with someone and it makes sense to start communicating, your hand still reaches out to swipe further. “What if someone even more interesting opens up there now?” So one bad date turns into a reason to open the app again and scroll through. And one more thing. And one more thing. It turns out to be a vicious circle: the more you choose, the less happy you are with what you chose, the more you want to choose further. The paradox of choice is not a personal problem. This is a systemic effect that any platform with an endless feed of profiles is programmed for. What to do about it In psychology, there are several ways to break out of the paradox of choice. Most of them apply to dating apps as well. The first way is to limit the number of options. If you set yourself the rule “10 swipes a day, no more,” the paradox weakens sharply. The brain knows there are few choices and takes it more seriously. It works. The problem is that for most people this goes against the very nature of swiping. applications - it is specially designed so that you do not stop. The second way is to switch from selection to recognition. Psychologists say that there are two decision-making strategies: maximizer (I choose the best of all options) and satisficer (I choose the first suitable one). Maximizers are always the most unhappy because they can't stop. Satisfiers are healthier because “good enough” is good enough. The third way is to change the dating format altogether. Move away from the directory model to the context model. When you meet not from 200 profiles, but from six people at a quiz, the paradox of choice simply does not arise. Six is ​​not “too much.” This is exactly how much to talk to everyone and understand who is interesting to you. How it works at caramelle.fun Our app is specifically designed to avoid the choice trap. You don't scroll through profiles - you see events. Not “here are 200 people, choose”, but “here is a quiz on Tuesday, there will be six people, are you interested?” This changes the psychology of dating completely. During a quiz, you don’t have the thought “maybe the best company is sitting in the next bar?” You are here with these people. You either have a pleasant evening or you don't - but at least you actually have a good time. Event sizes range from 2 to 10 people. This is not an “endless stream”, but a finite company. The paradox of choice doesn't work at this scale. Cities of the Russian Federation. Age 18+. You can download caramelle.fun from the link. What to read next If you are interested in the topic of the psychology of choice, we recommend Barry Schwartz’s book “The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less.” It came out in 2004, but over the past 20 years, with the advent of dating- applications and streaming services has only become more relevant. In the following articles, we will look at other psychological traps that are encountered in modern dating: the “one important thing” effect in correspondence, the phenomenon of a ghostly partner, and why we become attached to people who disappear without explanation. Subscribe to the channel so you don't miss it. Team caramelle.fun