Schwartz's classic experiment

Schwartz and colleagues set up a tasting table at a supermarket. One version had 6 jam flavors, another 24. The 24-flavor table drew more attention. The 6-flavor table sold 10× more.

Conclusion: large choice excites but paralyzes. Large choice creates fear of missing out — what if the next is better? — and blocks action. The effect has been replicated in dozens of subsequent studies: choice from 30 retirement plans, 40 chocolates, 50 dating profiles — same pattern everywhere.

Why swipe is the worst form of choice

Normal choice means seeing options at once (a shelf of jams) and comparing. Swipe is different: options arrive sequentially, with no way back.

This creates a unique form of paralysis: one can't compare Anya to Masha, because when Masha is seen, Anya is no longer remembered precisely. So the result is either (a) liking no one «next might be better», or (b) liking everyone «no big deal, can sort out at match time».

Pronk and Denissen measured exactly this: more profiles viewed = higher average rejection threshold. Not conscious — automatic recalibration to context.

Real app data

Pronk and Denissen worked in a lab with controlled interfaces. What about real apps?

Hinge in its own research (2018, via TechCrunch) found: people who got fewer than 10 matches a week were more likely to reach a date than those getting 50+. Sounds unusual but matches the lab data. More matches = more triage chat = less real attention to each = fewer dates.

Hinge made a bold move — added a «8 likes per day» limit on the free tier. It's perceived as a «greedy paywall» but has product logic: force people to make a deliberate choice instead of mass swiping.

Why choice from 5 beats choice from 100

Choice psychology says: the optimal number of options is 4-7. That's what the brain can hold simultaneously (Miller's Law: 7±2 elements in working memory).

From 5 candidates one can:— compare each to each— assess who's actually interesting— make a decision with a sense of control

From 100 — none of the above is possible. Each is taken individually (a swipe) — and it is never understood why exactly this one was picked.

Interestingly, relationships form more often from limited choice. Because the decision is conscious, not random exclusion from an infinite stream.

How a curated approach works in product

mmeet has no infinite feed. The algorithm shows a limited set of people who are geographically close and meet basic criteria. Not «everyone in Kyiv» — but those with whom a meeting is practically possible in the next few days.

It's less «choice» in technical terms. But there is no paralysis by FOMO, because the interface doesn't hint at an «infinity of next». What's visible — is who can really meet.

The trade-off is clear: in a small city, the curated approach shows few people, maybe none. Swipe apps in this sense have an advantage — they show everyone in a 50 km radius, even those unlikely to meet. The curator goes silent where swipe says «look, an option». More honest, but harder. rder.