Desire in swipe mode: how abundance affects eroticization and choice

There is a change in the way desire is organized when intimacy passes through interfaces designed to to assess quickly people.

In the “swipe” ecosystem, the promise is simple: more profiles, more opportunities, more likely to find “the right person”.

However, abundance has paradoxical effects: it may increase momentary excitement, but reduce eroticizationthat is, it can give a feeling of control, but increase anxiety, pressure and doubt; it makes meeting easier, but makes investing difficult.

This article explores what recent research suggests about how abundance alters desirehow it influences the way we choose and connect, and what we can do to regain intentionality and pleasure in a context of “infinite options”.

Abundance is not freedom, it is cognitive and emotional burden.

The literature on choice overload (choice overload) shows that a high number of options can increase initial attraction, but decrease the probability of deciding, satisfaction with the decision and the feeling of having chosen “the best”.

A classic landmark is that of Iyengar and Lepper, where more options generated more curiosity, but fewer decisions and less satisfaction.

In the context of dating, this takes on particular contours because “choice” is not a product: is a person, and the decision involves identity (“What does this say about me?”), belonging and value (“Was I chosen?”).

Studies in profile paradigms show that larger pools of potential partnerships tend to reduce satisfaction with the choice over time and the increase the likelihood of changing your decision.

More recently, reviews and theoretical discussions reinforce that overload can contribute to indecision, less satisfaction and greater regret in domains such as romantic pairing.

From “like” to “next”: when desire gets stuck in the novelty circuit

Human desire is highly sensitive to novelty and intermittent reinforcement. Apps combine these two ingredients: new profiles with each gesture + the uncertainty of match (a type of quantifiable social feedback).

Experimental studies indicate that manipulating the probability of obtaining matches he can increase feelings of choice overloadeven when it does not, in itself, improve variables such as loneliness or fear of being alone in all user profiles.

The system can train the brain to desire the possibility (the “next”), more than you want the real person (the “here”). This shifts eroticization from an embodied, relational experience to a micro-spike of dopamine associated with novelty/validation.

The “rejection mentality”: when choosing too much makes us more selective and less available

One of the most consistent conclusions of recent research is the so-called rejection mind-setwhich is characterized by an increase in rejections over time, as the person has greater contact with more profiles, and the evaluation of partnerships tends to worsen (less satisfaction with the options, less sense of success).

In one study, a substantial drop in the likelihood of accepting profiles was observed as participants advanced in the sequence of options.

This helps explain the common feeling that the more you look, the more the internal system changes approach mode (curiosity, openness) pto protection mode (pessimism, hypercriticism, risk avoidance).

Commodification of the other

One relevant criticism of dating platforms is the tendency towards side-by-side comparison (almost like a catalogue).

Finkel and colleagues’ classic review suggests that browsing through many profiles can increase commoditization (seeing people as comparable items) and reduce willingness to compromise, precisely because the “best” always seems potentially just a swipe away.

Here, the abundance amplifies two traps:

• Maximization (“I have to choose the best possible option”), in other words, more options lead to more criteria, increasing doubt.
• Relational FOMO (“what if there was someone better?”), in other words, the mind is oriented towards potential loss and not towards building a bond.

O paradox of choicea, when applied to eroticism, reveals a central tension in the contemporary experience of desire, that is, the greater the available stimulus, the lesser the effective eroticization tends to be.

Eroticizing is not the same to receive constant sexual stimulation. The eroticization implies attributing meaning to the encountersustaining tension, allowing fantasy and being present, processes that require time, tolerable ambiguity, narrative construction and minimally stable attention.

The abundance of options, on the contrary, tends to push for quick decisions and binary, taken before there is sufficient material for the development of a deeper desire.

It also promotes a fragmented attentionwhich hinders the ability to fantasize and invest emotionally, and feeds a constant comparison, which shifts the experience from the desiring body to an evaluative and classifying mind.

As a consequence, satisfaction becomes more difficult to achiever, since the reference standard ceases to be the present encounter and becomes the indefinite set of “all other imagined options”. In other words, increasing choice can intensify anxietyregret and dissatisfaction.

Given this scenario, it becomes relevant to think about what can help restore desire, clarity and pleasure. If the design of the applications works as a true “choice architecture”, it is also possible to build an internal architecture more protective and intentional.

A first strategy consists of deliberately reducing the set of choices, setting clear limits, for example, a maximum number of profiles per day, which reduces decision fatigue and helps preserve curiosity.

Instead of excessive maximization logicbased on multiple filters and criteria, becomes more functional identify a small set of essential non-negotiables, such as values, lifestyle or relational goals.

The creation of a “incubation time” before deciding is equally relevant, as research on choice overload suggests that negative impact increases when there is room for excessive rumination, so the goal is not to deliberate more, but to deliberate better.

Another important change involves abandoning the catalog logic and moving more quickly towards interactiontaking a promising match into conversation and meeting in a reasonable amount of time, without prolonging the screening indefinitely.

A Reinforcement hygiene is also essential: When the app starts to be used as a way to prove personal value or regulate self-esteem, the break becomes a healthy intervention, as the perception of excessive availability can increase the fear of being alone and weaken self-image.

Finally, the deliberate eroticization implies reintroducing elements that favor the real desire, curiosity, context, voice, moodshareable fantasy and rhythm, shifting the focus from the simple combination of photography and checklist to a more embodied, relational and meaningful experience.

In short, “swipe mode” reorganizes the desirebecause it reorganizes attention, reward and meaning.

The abundance can be useful to expand accessespecially for people with limited social networks, but it also has psychological costs: more rejection, more fatigue, less satisfaction and an eroticization increasingly dependent on novelty and quick validation.

Recovering desire, in this context, is recover presence, limits and investment. It’s not “quitting apps” on principlebut stop living in them as if they were infinite, and start using them as a tool with a beginning, middle and end.

Bibliographic references:

• M. (2024). Mate choice plurality, choice overload, and singlehood.
• & Toma, C. L. (2017). Virtual choice architecture and online dating: The effects of choice overload and reversibility on satisfaction.
• Eastwick, P. W., Karney, B. R., Reis, H. T., & Sprecher, S. (2012). Online dating: A critical analysis from the perspective of psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(1), 3–66.
• & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
• Denissen, J. J. A., & colegas (2020). A rejection mind-set: Choice overload in online dating. Social Psychological and Personality Science.
• (2004). The paradox of choice: Why more is less. HarperCollins.
• & colegas (2022). The effect of excessive partner availability on fear of being single, self-esteem, and partner choice overload. Computers in Human Behavior.
• & colegas (2024). The psychological influence of dating app matches.
• & colegas (2025). Decision-making on dating apps: Is swiping… (meta-analytic/experimental synthesis).
• & colegas (2025). Emotional dynamics and engagement cycles in swiping