Who wrote this article?

This article was written by Gildas Garrec, CBT Psychotherapist, from Psychologie et Sérénité.

Where can I take related psychological tests?

You can explore our 68+ online psychological tests on https://tests.psychologieetserenite.com/tests. All tests are anonymous with detailed PDF reports.

Why Dating Apps Ruin Your Love Life

Gildas Garrec—CBT Psychotherapist—17 July 2025

13 min read

Twenty years ago, finding a romantic partner was a matter of geographic proximity, social circle, and chance. In 2026, someone registered on Tinder, Bumble, and Hinge has potentially access to thousands of profiles within a few kilometers radius.

Access to potential partners has never been wider. Yet surveys show that loneliness has never been higher, relationships last shorter, and relationship satisfaction is declining.

How do we explain this paradox? The answer lies in a concept formulated by American psychologist Barry Schwartz in 2004: the paradox of choice. The more options we have, the less satisfied we are with our final décision.

Besoin d'en parler ?

Prendre RDV en visioséance

This mechanism, demonstrated in contexts as varied as food consumption and retirement plans, applies with particular force to matters of the heart.

I'm Gildas Garrec, a psychotherapist specializing in CBT in Nantes, and the paradox of choice is one of the mechanisms I observe most frequently in people who consult for relationship difficulties linked to dating apps.

The Jam Experiment: 24 Options vs. 6

In 2000, psychologists Sheena Iyengar and Mark Lepper conducted a now-famous experiment in an upscale supermarket in Menlo Park, California. Two jam tasting stands were offered to customers, alternating: one presented 24 varieties, the other only 6.

The results upended classical economic theories:

– The stand with 24 jams attracted more interest (60% of passersby vs. 40%).

– But the purchase rate was radically different: 3% purchase rate with 24 options vs. 30% purchase rate with 6 options.

In other words, people were 10 times more likely to make a choice when options were limited.

Application to Relationships

Replace jam with Tinder profiles. The mechanism is identical:

– More profiles available = more curiosity (we swipe more).

– But more profiles available = fewer commitment décisions (we choose no one).

Researcher Eli Finkel (Northwestern University) reached the same conclusion in his work The All-or-Nothing Marriage (2017): dating apps are excellent for access (meeting people you would never have encountered) but mediocre for selection and commitment. An abundance of options produces paralysis, not satisfaction.

Satisficers vs. Maximizers: Two Ways of Choosing

Barry Schwartz identified two décision-maker profiles, whose distinction sheds enormous light on contemporary romantic difficulties.

The Satisficer: Seeking "Good Enough"

The satisficer (from "satisfy" + "suffice") is someone who seeks an option that is sufficiently good according to their pre-defined criteria. When they find someone who meets their essential criteria, they commit—without continuing to search for a superior option somewhere else.

The satisficer doesn't ask themselves: "Is this the best choice possible?" They ask themselves: "Does this person meet what's important to me?" The distinction is fundamental.

The Maximizer: Seeking "The Best"

The maximizer is someone who seeks the best available option. They systematically compare, explore all alternatives, and even after making a choice, continue to wonder if they might have found someone better. The maximizer needs assurance that their décision is optimal—an assurance that is by définition impossible to obtain when options are infinite.

What Research Shows

Schwartz and his colleagues' work (2002) demonstrated convergently that maximizers objectively achieve better results (a higher salary, a better apartment) but are significantly less satisfied with those results than satisficers. They ruminate more, regret more, and experience more remorse.

Applied to relationships, the mechanism works as follows: the maximizer may have found a generous, funny, intelligent, and physically attractive person, but continues to wonder if someone "even better" exists. This endless quest sabotages the capacity to invest in the present relationship.

Schwartz's research also shows that maximizers are more prone to dépression, social anxiety, and lower self-esteem—three factors that worsen relationship difficulties.

FOMO and Relationships: The Scientific Data

Fear Of Missing Out (FOMO)—the fear of missing something—is the emotional engine of the paradox of choice. In the romantic context, FOMO translates into a persistent fear that a "better" person exists somewhere, just beyond the next swipe.

Carter and McBride (2022): FOMO and Relationship Duration

A study by Carter and McBride published in 2022 in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships provided particularly illuminating quantitative data. The researchers assessed the level of relationship FOMO in 600 participants and followed their romantic trajectories over 18 months.

The results are unambiguous: participants with high FOMO showed significantly fewer lasting relationships than those with low FOMO. More specifically:

– They initiated more relationships (more "first dates").

– But these relationships lasted on average 3 times shorter.

– They reported a level of relationship satisfaction 40% lower.

– They were 2.5 times more likely to end a relationship within the first 3 months.

FOMO doesn't increase the chances of finding the right partner. It increases the chances of never giving any partner a real chance.

FOMO as Cognitive Distortion

In CBT, FOMO is analyzed as a form of catastrophizing applied to romantic future: "If I commit to this person, I risk missing out on someone better." This thought presents all the characteristics of a cognitive distortion:

– It is unverifiable (we cannot know the future).

– It is paralyzing (it prevents action).

Besoin d'en parler ?

Prendre RDV en visioséance

– It is self-fulfilling (by preventing commitment, it guarantees that no relationship will be satisfying).

The 5 Cognitive Distortions of "Always Better"

CBT identifies several cognitive distortions that fuel the paradox of choice in love. By naming them, it becomes possible to question them.

1. Personalization

Automatic thought: "If this relationship doesn't make me perfectly happy, then this isn't the right person." Reality: No relationship makes you "perfectly happy." Relationship satisfaction is a continuum, not a binary state.

Gottman's studies (40 years of research on couples) show that even the most satisfied couples experience moments of frustration, boredom, and doubt. Attributing the normal discomfort of a relationship to a poor partner choice is personalization.

2. Catastrophizing

Automatic thought: "If I commit now and meet someone better later, I'll be trapped in an unsatisfying relationship." Reality: This thought presupposes three false things: (1) that there objectively exists a "better" person (compatibility is contextual, not absolute), (2) that commitment is irreversible (it isn't), and (3) that meeting a hypothetically "better" person is more probable than deepening the current relationship (data shows the opposite).

3. Émotional Reasoning

Automatic thought: "I don't feel butterflies in my stomach, so this isn't the right person." Reality: The emotional intensity of relationship beginnings (the "limerence" described by Dorothy Tennov in 1979) is a temporary neurochemical state, not an indicator of long-term compatibility.

Research shows that relationships founded on intense initial attraction are no more lasting than those that develop gradually. Using emotional feeling as the sole décision criterion is emotional reasoning.

4. All-or-Nothing Thinking

Automatic thought: "This person doesn't check ALL the boxes, so they're not the right one." Reality: No human being checks all the boxes of another human being. The checklist—especially when it exceeds 10 items—is fiction.

Research by Eastwick and Finkel (2008) showed that the selection criteria people state before speed dating (height, income, appearance) do not at all predict the people they actually choose to date. What matters in real-world meeting is different from what you think you want on paper.

5. Disqualifying the Positive

Automatic thought: "Yes, this person is generous, funny, and thoughtful, but they're not ambitious/athletic/cultured enough." Reality: This mechanism involves acknowledging the other's qualities but neutralizing them with an identified flaw. The positive is disqualified, the negative is amplified. This cognitive filter is particularly active in an environment of abundant choice: when you think you can find "someone who has it all," the actual qualities of the current partner seem insufficient.

The Trap of "They Don't Check ALL the Boxes"

This trap deserves specific attention, so frequent is it in consultations. The logic is as follows: dating apps allow filtering profiles according to dozens of criteria (age, height, profession, hobbies, astrological sign, dietary preference…).

This filtering granularity creates the illusion that it's possible—and therefore desirable—to find someone who matches all criteria.

But criteria aren't additive. Someone who checks 8 out of 10 boxes isn't "worse" than someone who would check all 10. The two missing criteria may not be relevant in the reality of the relationship. Human compatibility doesn't work like a matching algorithm—it's emergent, contextual, and evolving.

The additional danger is that the criteria themselves multiply over time. The longer you use the apps, the more you refine your "list."

What started as "nice and honest" becomes "nice, honest, tall, athletic, ambitious, cultured, well-traveled, good cook, funny, emotionally available, financially stable, loves dogs and art films." The list becomes a wall.

"The Grass Is Always Greener": The Permanent Illusion

The English expression "the grass is always greener on the other side" perfectly describes the psychological mechanism at work in the paradox of romantic choice.

Dating apps maintain this illusion by making "other options" perpetually visible and accessible. Even in a relationship, the mere presence of the app on your phone (or memory of its existence) creates a permanent point of comparison.

The real partner—with their flaws, bad days, and annoying habits—is perpetually in competition with an imaginary partner—idealized, filtered, and photographed at their best angle.

This phenomenon has direct consequences for commitment. A study by Timmermans and De Caluwe (2017) showed that people who continue using dating apps while in a relationship report lower relationship satisfaction and weaker commitment than those who uninstalled the apps.

The mere perceptual availability of alternatives is sufficient to erode investment in the present relationship.

This mechanism is all the more insidious because it's invisible. You don't consciously tell yourself: "I'm comparing my partner to Tinder profiles." But the brain, regularly exposed to a stream of attractive faces and seductive bios, unconsciously adjusts its reference threshold.

Yesterday's "good enough" becomes today's "not sufficient"—not because the partner changed, but because the comparison reference point changed.

This phenomenon can also fuel infidelity dynamics: when temptation is a finger tap away and commitment is already fragile due to the paradox of choice, the boundary between virtual flirting and acting on it becomes considerably thinner.

CBT Exercise: The List of 5 Essential Criteria

This exercise is simple, but it requires rigorous honesty with yourself. It's inspired by Schwartz's work on the satisficer/maximizer distinction.

Instructions

Take a piece of paper. Not a screen—paper forces reflection.

Write down the 5 qualities or values that are truly essential to you in a relationship. Not 10, not 15, not 50. Five. This number is deliberately constraining: it forces you to prioritize.

Each criterion must answer the question: "Could I be happy in a relationship where this quality is absent?" If your answer is "yes, it's possible," then it's not an essential criterion. It's not a comfort criterion—it's a vital one.

Rephrase each criterion in terms of observable behaviors, not abstract traits.

– Abstract: "someone intelligent" → too vague, unverifiable. – Observable: "someone I can have stimulating conversations with" → verifiable from the first exchanges. – Abstract: "someone ambitious" → projections and fantasies. – Observable: "someone who has personal projects and acts on them" → observable.

Once the list is established, commit to using it as your only filter. If someone presents these 5 qualities, they deserve real investment, regardless of secondary criteria that might be missing. If someone doesn't present one of these 5 criteria, it's a signal of incompatibility—not a detail.

Why This Exercise Works

It transforms the selection process from "maximizer" (seeking the best) to "satisficer" (seeking someone who meets essential needs). It reduces the cognitive overload of evaluating dozens of parameters simultaneously.

And it refocuses attention on what really matters over the duration of a relationship—values, communication style, reciprocity—rather than what shines in a profile.

People who apply this method consistently report two changes: a significant reduction in choice anxiety and increased ability to invest in the early stages of a relationship instead of immediately searching for reasons not to continue.

The Paradox of Choice Isn't Inevitable

Understanding the paradox of choice doesn't mean renouncing dating apps or settling for the first partner by default. It means becoming aware of the cognitive mechanism at work and deliberately choosing not to let it govern your romantic décisions.

Dating apps offer unprecedented access to potential partners. But access isn't meeting. True meeting—the kind that builds something—demands presence, patience, and tolerance for imperfection. No algorithm can replace the human décision to give someone a chance despite uncertainty.

Key Takeaways

The paradox of choice (Schwartz, 2004) shows that option abundance reduces satisfaction and increases décision paralysis.
The jam experiment by Iyengar and Lepper (2000) illustrates the phenomenon: 24 choices = 3% purchase rate vs. 6 choices = 30%.
Satisficers (who seek "good enough") are significantly happier than maximizers (who seek "the best").
Carter and McBride (2022): high FOMO is associated with significantly fewer lasting relationships, 40% lower satisfaction, and 2.5 times higher risk of early breakup.
The 5 cognitive distortions of "always better": personalization, catastrophizing, emotional reasoning, all-or-nothing thinking, disqualifying the positive.
The "grass is always greener" illusion is maintained by the permanent availability of alternatives on apps.
The 5 essential criteria exercise transforms selection from maximizer to satisficer mode, reducing choice anxiety and increasing investment capacity.

If you recognize in yourself this tendency to always seek better, to compare your partner to an unattainable ideal, or to flee commitment for fear of making a mistake—it's neither whimsy nor a character flaw. It's an identifiable and modifiable psychological mechanism. The Love Coach Program addresses these dynamics in depth. You can also schedule an appointment for an individual consultation in Nantes or by videoconference.

Internal Links:

– Dating apps in 2026: How dating apps affect your mental health

– Infidelity: Why we cheat even when we love

– Love Coach Program

– CBT Therapy in Nantes

– Contact Me