In relationships, in sushi and in Netflix: why we are no longer able to choose anything
For years, technology has offered us a freedom of choice that seemed sparkling: streaming freed us from the broadcast schedule, delivery services made cooking unnecessary, and dating apps replaced matchmaking. However, psychologists and behavioral researchers understand today that the excess of options did not free us, but on the contrary: it only led us to a state of "choice fatigue," where abundance leaves us with feelings of being stuck and helpless.
Once a week I treat myself to an order from Wolt, but somehow it turns out that these treat evenings are the worst I have in the week. An hour and a half from the moment I decided to treat myself to food from outside, I find myself scrolling and scrolling without any approach to the finish line, debating between noodles and sushi, between a burger and a salad, a burrito or pasta. And what about the restaurants that don't have delivery fees? And what about the restaurants that offer a discount? When I ask my partner what he wants to eat, he answers, "No, this time you choose." As a last resort, I give up any attempt to be a rational human being, open Claude and order him: "Choose for me what to order." In the end, I order from the same regular place. The rest of the restaurants look at me from the screen with disappointment.
According to Wolt Israel data, there are currently about 11,000 business partners in the app. And yet, according to data from the delivery giant DoorDash, 47% of consumers in the USA make a repeat order from the exact same restaurant at least once a week. We don't explore the abundance, we dig into the most familiar corner of it. Studies in Stockholm, Singapore, and Beijing confirm that by the 15th order, most users return to a restaurant they have already ordered from. The app offers us a world, but we live in a village. Faced with an abundance of options, the brain takes a shortcut and escapes to the default. This phenomenon in psychology is called "decision fatigue."
The "Perfect Choice" Trap
In 2020, researchers from Tilburg University conducted experiments simulating a dating app environment. They discovered a consistent pattern: the more profiles participants scrolled through, the more they rejected. The probability of approval between the first and last profile dropped by an average of 27%. For women, the effect was particularly sharp, accompanied by a decrease in openness to falling in love.
In a world where everything—from a movie to a partner—is a click away, the promised abundance has become a source of frustration. Perhaps this is why more and more platforms are starting to rethink the idea that we always want more options, offering us instead something we thought we didn't need: for someone else to choose for us.
Netflix: A Return to Linear TV?
16 years have passed since Netflix launched its streaming model, freeing viewers from the broadcast schedule. However, today the company seems to be moving toward the opposite format. In July, the Wall Street Journal reported that Netflix is considering launching linear channels that operate 24/7. Viewers just need to turn on a channel and let it run in the background, without choosing anything.
The reason is simple: a decrease in engagement. A 2024 UserTesting survey found that the average American viewer spends about 110 hours a year—about five days—just scrolling between options in an attempt to decide what to watch. This is not Netflix's first attempt to recalculate a route: they previously launched the Direct channel in France and the "Play Something" button.
FOBO: Fear of Better Options
Dr. Liraz Margalit, a behavioral researcher in the digital age, explains this paradox with the term FOBO (Fear of Better Options). This is not just a fear, but an anxiety. Behind it lies the economic concept of opportunity cost: by choosing one thing, we "pay" by waiving thousands of other options. In a catalog of 18,000 series, every click on Play is a waiver of 17,999 other possibilities.
The seminal experiment by Sheena Iyengar and Mark Lepper (2000) with jam tasting proved that in front of a table with 24 types of jam, only 3% of shoppers bought a jar, whereas in front of a table with only six types, 30% bought. A small supply does not limit freedom; it allows for choice.
We are not built to choose from abundance. Our brain is capable of effectively comparing no more than three items. In his book The Paradox of Choice (2004), psychologist Barry Schwartz described the "maximizer"—a person who does not look for a suitable option, but the perfect one. Under the auspices of technology, we have all become maximizers. We train our brains to reject rather than choose, which seeps into all areas of our lives.
The Price of Loneliness
In dating apps, the ideal number of options for choosing a partner is between 20 and 50. Beyond that, every additional profile only decreases the chance of finding love. 78% of dating app users experience burnout. The market is reacting: usage of Tinder, Hinge, and Bumble is dropping, and stocks are losing value. Even Bumble founder Whitney Wolfe Herd admitted that modern apps are rooted in rejection and judgment.
Margalit suggests a mental turnaround: the critical moment is not the choice, but what happens after. It is important to tell yourself: "You made the best decision possible." The series you chose is the right one. The dish is an excellent choice. Tomorrow's date does not need to beat a thousand profiles in the app. You only need one moment of mindset: I chose, so enough.
