Making snap, gut-level judgments about dating apps can leave users feeling worse about themselves than systematically evaluating profiles based on set criteria. A recent study published in Media Psychology found that while seeing a large number of potential partners can increase feelings of overwhelm, it’s the intuitive swiping strategy that actually undermines users’ self-esteem and sense of value as a mate. These results suggest that the fast-paced design of modern dating platforms comes with hidden psychological costs, depending on how individuals choose to utilize the apps.
Traditional online dating agencies typically rely on lengthy questionnaires and deliberate algorithms to pair users. Modern mobile dating platforms take a vastly different approach, exposing users to a seemingly vast pool of available partners within a single session. Users can quickly rate these profiles with a swipe of their thumb. Platform design that provides positive social feedback in the form of matches greatly encourages this continued browsing behavior.
Previous research on consumer behavior suggests that an abundance of choices can make decision-making difficult and people feel dissatisfied. Psychologists often refer to this phenomenon as the tyranny of choice. According to this theory, an optimal environment filled with infinite options increases the pressure to succeed. If the user does not find a partner or makes the wrong choice, there are no excuses left and he can blame his own shortcomings.
Marina F. Thomas, a researcher at Austria’s Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences, led the study along with Alice Binder and Jörg Matthes from the University of Vienna. They set out to test how the sheer number of viewed profiles and a user’s personal decision-making style jointly influence psychological well-being. Researchers wanted to test whether dating apps provide the self-authentication that users often seek, or whether they simply overwhelm users.
To set up the experiment, the researchers used regulatory mode theory. This psychological concept explains that people typically make decisions using one of two main modes. Evaluation mode involves systematically determining options, comparing specific attributes, and attempting to make a correct and defensible choice. Movement mode is action-oriented. People who use this mode make quick and intuitive decisions based on their intuition and primarily try to keep moving forward rather than overthinking.
To test these dynamics, the researchers recruited 401 undergraduate students into an online experiment. Participants were randomly assigned to view different pools of dating app profiles. One group displayed a low profile of 11, a second group a medium profile of 31, and a third group a high profile of 91. The photos were presented in a mock dating application designed specifically for this study.
The researchers used a two-step method to influence how participants made decisions. First, participants completed a writing task to prepare themselves. They wrote down personal memories of times when they acted as quick decision makers to trigger an action-oriented mode, or wrote about times when they critically compared themselves to others to trigger an evaluation mode. The control group skipped this writing exercise and received no special instructions.
Following the writing task, participants were given clear instructions to rate their dating profiles. One group was told to critically evaluate profiles, noting specific physical characteristics, clothing styles, and perceived social status in order to make highly legitimate decisions. The action-oriented group was instructed to swipe intuitively and dynamically, making selections purely based on first impressions and intuition.
After categorizing the mock profiles, participants answered questions designed to measure several psychological outcomes. Researchers assessed their self-esteem, their fear of being single, how highly they valued their own worth as a potential romantic partner, and how overwhelmed they felt. The software also silently recorded the percentage of profiles each participant chose to accept.
Experiments have shown that increasing the number of choices directly increases the feeling of being overwhelmed. Participants who viewed 91 profiles reported greater mental strain than participants who viewed fewer profiles. Evaluating more options also lowered the overall acceptance rate. As the number of choices increased, participants became more selective and fewer participants were accepted.
In contrast to the tyranny of choice theory, the sheer volume of profiles had no negative effect on self-esteem or participants’ insecurities about their relationship status. Instead, the specific ways in which participants made decisions caused psychological changes. They found that swiping intuitively based on intuition directly leads to lower self-esteem.
Participants who followed a quick action-oriented strategy reported lower self-esteem than those who swiped naturally without prompting or those who used specific criteria to evaluate profiles. The intuitive group also rated their personal worth as a spouse lower than the other groups. The researchers noted that this was an unexpected result, as previous theory suggested that highly critical, criteria-based decision-making typically causes greater stress and self-doubt in consumer environments.
The authors believe that making intuitive choices places all the burden of decision-making on the user’s internal feelings rather than on observable facts. Romantic preferences are difficult to fully define, so relying solely on unexplained intuition can make users feel insecure. As a result, you may mistakenly turn that anxiety inward, causing you to doubt your own worth. In contrast, relying on concrete characteristics provides an external buffer that protects the ego from the weight of the decision.
Another possible explanation involves cognitive friction related to the format of dating apps. Static dating profiles primarily display stationary photos and short text, which naturally lends itself to critical evaluation. Asking users to react quickly and intuitively to static photos can create a mismatch between task and mental mode. Users may misinterpret this subtle mental discrepancy as a personal flaw.
The swiping strategy chosen also influenced when participants began to feel mentally overloaded. For those using strict criteria or swiping naturally, looking at 31 profiles felt just as manageable as looking at 11 profiles. For those who swipe based on intuition, the feeling of being overwhelmed spiked much earlier, and was felt as strongly in 31 profiles as it was in evaluating 91 profiles.
Although this experiment provides a detailed insight into dating app usage, it also has practical limitations due to the nature of the simulation. The decisions made during the experiment had no real social impact. That is, participants knew that they would likely never actually date the people they rated. In functioning dating apps, users may put varying levels of effort into their selections, as real rejections and connections are at risk.
The study also evaluated portraits specifically tailored to their demographics, based on a sample comprised primarily of young college students. The authors pointed out that college students often work in environments that reward critical evaluation, which may have made the intuitive swiping process feel unusually uncomfortable. Future research should involve more diverse populations, including different age groups and educational backgrounds.
Future research could also track actual dating app behavior over time to see how self-reported decision-making styles hold up outside of a laboratory setting. Technology such as eye-tracking software could allow researchers to observe what profile information users naturally focus on. This approach allows scientists to precisely study the mechanisms of natural swiping without relying on explicit behavioral instructions.
The study, “Decision Making on Dating Apps: Is It Wrong to Swipe Less and Swipe Right?” was authored by Marina F. Thomas, Alice Binder, and Jörg Matthes.
