By investigating the impact of different presentation orders, Mogilner et al. (2013) demonstrated that consumers are more satisfied and committed when the options of a choice set were presented all at once (simultaneously) rather than one at a time (sequentially). We replicate this effect in the online dating context across two studies and demonstrate that choosers are more satisfied and committed if they viewed all dating profiles simultaneously rather than sequentially when making their choice. This effect is mainly driven by regret arising from foregoing options in sequential settings.
Notes
Severin Friedrich Bischof, Johannes Bauer, and Liane Nagengast contributed equally to this paper.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Modern online dating has changed the way people search for and choose their romantic partners. While back in the 1980s Phil Collins (Holland et al., 1982) described patience as the secret to romantic happiness, today’s reality is that people actively scout for partners on online dating applications. Many such apps (e.g., Tinder, Bumble) display profiles sequentially. However, previous research demonstrated that presenting options one at a time (sequentially) versus all at once (simultaneously) undermines choosers’ satisfaction with and commitment to their chosen option (Mogilner et al., 2013). Across two laboratory studies and two field experiments, the authors show that this occurs because sequential option presentation increases choosers’ hope for a better option and regret due to foregone options. In contrast, simultaneous option presentation allows choosers to compare available options, thereby increasing choice satisfaction. Since lower satisfaction and/or commitment in romantic relationships can significantly impact people’s lives, we aim to contribute to this existing research by extending it to a highly practical context.
The objective of this paper is to replicate and extend Mogilner et al.’s (2013) research (referred to as “MSI research” hereafter), which revealed a presentation order effect. We aim to do this by examining simultaneous, flexible sequential, and strict sequential choices in online dating. Our replication differs in several ways. Unlike the original study, real-world dating contexts offer no real finality in search and choice unless one finds a lifelong partner and stops searching. However, this ongoing search may also apply to wine and chocolate lovers continually looking for new products. We believe this difference in pursuit domains enhances the value of this conceptual replication. Additionally, given our fictional dating context, our experimental setup lacks the real experience present in the actual consumption of chocolate or wine. Conceptually, this replication seeks to add to the existing knowledge by introducing new potential mediators and ruling out alternative explanations. Moreover, while Mogilner et al. (2013) tested three different choice conditions, we include two additional conditions to gain further insights into the presentation order effect.
An overview of the choice contexts, potential mediators, and various conditions analyzed in both the original study and our replication is depicted in Table 1.
Table 1
Study characteristics of Mogilner et al. (2013) and our research
Choice context
Conditions
Potential mediators
Simultaneous
Simultaneous (Stepwise)
Flexible Sequential
Strict Sequential
Strict Sequential (Repeat)
Our research
Study 1
Online dating
x
x
x
none
Study 2
Online dating
x
x
x
x
x
Hope, regret, choice closure, fear of missing out, choice difficulty, experiental value
MSI research
Study 1
Chocolate
x
x
none
Study 2
Chocolate
x
x
none
Study 1
Wine
x
x
x
Hope, regret
In the following section, we present the results of our first study which aimed to replicate the original effect shown by Mogilner et al. (2013).
Advertisement
2 Replication study 1: pretest
In this pretest, we aim to transfer the effects of the MSI research to a new context, specifically interpersonal relationships. While we do not examine the underlying psychological processes, we seek to replicate the main effect to demonstrate its reliability, replicability, and applicability across various contexts.
2.1 Participants and procedure
We recruited one hundred and eight people from the campus of a major European university (MAge = 25.3, SDAge = 3.2, 58% female, 42% male) to participate in an experiment regarding dating partner choice. First, participants were randomly assigned to one of three order conditions (see the following paragraph). Second, they were given an iPad displaying profiles of potential dating partners. These profiles contained both photos and additional information about the potential dating partners (see Fig. 1). Third, participants chose the person with whom they were most inclined to go on a date. Finally, they responded to a survey including measures relevant to this study (see section 3.2).
Fig. 1
Examples of stimuli
×
Study participants were randomly assigned to one of three stimuli conditions with simultaneous, flexible sequential, or strict sequential option presentation (1a, 2, 3a as per Table 3 in the Appendix 1). In the simultaneous condition, participants evaluated five profiles of potential dating partners at once, allowing them to alternate between profiles during their assessment. In the flexible sequential condition, participants encountered profiles one after another, unable to revisit profiles but able to see all profiles before deciding. In the strict sequential condition, participants encountered one profile at a time and had to approve or disapprove upon encountering each profile, without the ability to revisit previous profiles or preview upcoming ones. Table 3 (see Appendix 1) summarizes the three manipulations.
To account for the diversity in participants’ preferred gender, they indicated their sexual preference. Individuals with a preference for only one gender saw five profiles of people of that specific gender (NPreferMen = 61 [57%], NPreferWomen = 37 [34%]). People with a preference for both genders were shown a set of five profiles randomly drawn from a pool of five women and five men (NPreferBoth = 10 [9%]). The order in which profiles were shown was counterbalanced and randomized across conditions.
2.2 Measures
The main dependent variable in this replication study was satisfaction. We adapted Fitzsimons’ (2000) scale to measure choice satisfaction using four items (α = .77), such as “I would describe my experience of deciding which profiles to choose as satisfying” (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).
To avoid confounds, we controlled for other variables relevant to individuals’ scouting or choice behavior. Participants indicated their current relationship status: in a relationship (46%), married (2%), single (44%), or in a setting they described as ‘complicated’ (8%). They also judged their familiarity with dating apps on a single-item five-point semantic differential with anchors ‘very familiar’ and ‘not familiar at all’ (MDatingAppFamiliarity = 3.3, SDDatingAppFamiliarity = 1.4). Finally, we measured the frequency with which participants regularly use dating applications: daily (7%), weekly (14%), once a month (7%), every 2–3 months (6%), less often than quarterly (15%), or not at all (51%).
2.3 Results
ANOVA revealed a significant effect of option presentation on participants’ satisfaction with their partner choice (F(2, 105) = 5.24, p < .01). This result holds when controlling for relationship status, familiarity with dating applications, and usage frequency (F(2, 102) = 6.15, p = .003). To cater to a more conservative data analysis, the following reporting as well as later studies will not contain any control variables. Participants in the simultaneous condition were significantly more satisfied (MSimultaneous = 4.2) than those in the flexible sequential condition (MFlexibleSequential = 3.5; t(105) = −2.00, p < .05) and the strict sequential condition (MStrictSequential = 3.3; t(105) = −3.19, p = .002). There was no difference regarding satisfaction between the two sequential conditions (t(105) = −1.17, p = .25).
Interestingly, the results did not change when selecting only participants who were “on the market” (43.5%). Excluding individuals who were married, in a committed relationship, or in a complicated relationship yielded similar means and p-values (MSimultaneous = 4.6; MFlexibleSequential = 3.7; MStrictSequential = 3.3; F(2, 44) = 5.12, p = .010). Once again, there was no significant difference in satisfaction between the two sequential conditions (t(44) = .92, p = .36) while significant differences were observed between participants in the simultaneous and the flexible sequential condition (t(44) = −2.28, p < .05) as well as between participants in the simultaneous and the strict sequential condition (t(44) = −3.08, p < .01).
Notably, selecting only participants who reported using a dating app at least occasionally (49%) yielded similar results (MSimultaneous = 4.5; MFlexibleSequential = 3.5; MStrictSequential = 3.4; F(2, 50) = 6.59, p < .01). The pattern of planned contrast remained consistent with significant differences between the simultaneous condition and the flexible (t(50) = −3.09, p < .01) as well as the strict sequential (t(50) = −3.14, p < .01) condition, and no significant difference between the two sequential conditions (t(50) = −.14, p = .89).
These results reproduced the original effect of Mogilner et al. (2013), such that choice satisfaction is higher when individuals can evaluate multiple options at once rather than sequentially. Interestingly, the strict sequential condition performed similarly to the flexible sequential condition, despite imposing higher burdens on participants, such as losing the opportunity to choose a candidate after rejecting them. Thus, the mere presence of a sequential mechanism lowers people’s satisfaction with their partner choice.
Figure 2 shows the results of our pretest alongside the results of the MSI research on choice satisfaction. It is important to note that we did not investigate varying levels of cognitive load in Study 1. Instead, we examined hope as a potential mediator in Study 2, which will be discussed in the next section (Fig. 3).
Fig. 2
Satisfaction across experimental conditions compared to MSI studies 1 and 2
Fig. 3
Satisfaction, regret, and hope in study 2 compared to MSI studies 1–3
×
×
3 Replication study 2: simultaneous vs. sequential decision making
This study seeks to replicate the original effects in a dating context, including all relevant process variables and additional mediators to identify or rule out alternative explanations.
3.1 Participants and procedure
We recruited 551 participants from Amazon MTurk (MAge = 36.4, SDAge = 10.2, 42% Female, 58% Men). Fifty of these participants failed to correctly answer an attention check, leaving 501 respondents who were randomly assigned to one of five order conditions (see Appendix 1 for summary). In this experiment, we added two new conditions: a stepwise simultaneous condition, where participants encountered the first and second halves of potential dating candidates separately before deciding, and a strict sequential condition with the ability to repeat the choice task. Participants then viewed up to six dating profiles and chose their favorite match before responding to the survey. As with prior analyses, we did not include any control variables.
3.2 Measures
As in the prior experiment, we employed reliable multi-item measures to validate behavioral patterns. Satisfaction (α = .81) was measured as in Study 1. In addition, we measured regret using five items borrowed from Heitmann, Lehmann, & Herrmann (2007), anchored by “strongly agree” and “strongly disagree” such as “When selecting a profile, I was curious about what would have happened had I chosen differently” (α = .89). We also measured hope using Mogilner, Shiv, and Iyengar’s (2013) four items regarding participants’ feeling during the choice procedure, such as “imagining the most perfect date possible”, on seven-point scale with anchors “not at all” and “very much” (α =. 90).
In addition to hope, we added further potential mediators to test alternative explanations to the process at hand. The first was Choice Closure by Gu, Botti, & Faro’s (2013) seven items such as “After choosing your date, to what extent did you perceive that decision as settled?” on seven-point scale with anchors such as “not at all” and “very much” (α = .81). The second alternative mediator was Fear of Missing Out, measured by Keinan & Kivetz’s (2008) one-item semantic differential with anchors “no feelings of missing out” and “very strong feeling of missing out”. We also measured Choice Difficulty using two self-crafted items on a semantic differential to indicate how difficult the choice was: “very easy – very difficult” and “not at all – very much” (α = .77). As different option presentation modes might elicit varying extents of joy, we also measured Experiential Value, using three statements about the choice procedure such as “fun” (seven-point scale, anchors: “not at all” and “very much”, α = .91).
3.3 Results
The five conditions differed significantly in respondents’ satisfaction (F(4, 496) = 3.57, p < .01). The two simultaneous conditions exhibited the highest satisfaction and did not significantly differ from each other (MSimultaneous = 5.7, MStepwiseSimultaneous = 5.8; t(190) = .38, p > .1). The two strict sequential conditions yielded the lowest satisfaction levels and also did not significantly differ from each other (MStrictSequential = 5.2, MStrictSequentialRepeat = 5.4; t(190) = .72, p > .1). Moreover, although the two simultaneous conditions were significantly superior to the two strict sequential conditions, they did not significantly differ from the flexible sequential condition.
Regret differed significantly (F(4, 496) = 6.07, p < .001) between the flexible and strict sequential options, reproducing the original results, such that the latter condition produces significantly higher regret (MFlexibleSequential = 3.9, MStrictSequential = 4.5, MStrictSequentialRepeat = 4.6; t(162) = 3.53, p < .01).
Hope, however, did not vary among the five conditions (F(4, 496) = .609, p > .1). All alternative mediators’ ANOVA results were insignificant. Our newly introduced conditions, splitting up the simultaneous option presentation in two steps on the one side and allowing for the strict sequential option presentation to be repeated, did not alter the original results. Simultaneous option presentation, even if stepwise, did not change participants’ satisfaction, regret, or hope. Strict sequential option presentation, even if repeatable, consistently prompted the same evaluation responses.
To confirm the robustness of our findings for people of different ages and genders, we ran several ANOVAs, considering age and gender as potential moderators of the positive effect of simultaneous presentation on choice satisfaction.
Regarding age, our analyses revealed no significant interaction effects on choice satisfaction (p > .1), suggesting that our results remain consistent across different age groups. Analyzing the interaction plot for gender and examining the corresponding contrasts showed that men exhibit significantly higher satisfaction with their choice compared to women when candidates are presented in strictly sequential order without a repeat option (MStrictSequential_Men = 5.4, MStrictSequential_Women = 4.8, F(9, 488)1 = 2.34, p < .05). There were no other significant contrasts, indicating that the results for the other presentation modes are similar for men and women.
4 Summary and implications
Overall, we successfully replicated the original findings of Mogilner et al. (2013) in a different setting and with participants from a different country. To establish a connection between our results and the original research, showcasing our contribution, we have summarized both studies in Table 2.
Table 2
Comparison of Mogilner et al. (2013) and our research
Paper
Product category
Sample characteristics
Findings
Our Research (2023)
Mobile dating app
(studies 1+2)
Study 1:
Student sample, n = 108
Study 2:
Mturk sample, n = 501
Study 1:
Strict and flexible sequential (vs. simultaneous) presentations lower choice satisfaction.
Study 2: Strict and flexible sequential (vs. simultaneous) presentations lower choice satisfaction.
Strict sequential (vs. flexible sequential and simultaneous) presentation increases regret.
No effect on hope by sequential vs. simultaneous presentation
Flexible sequential (vs. simultaneous) presentation increases hope for better options and lowers choice satisfaction and commitment.
Study 2:
Strict sequential (vs. simultaneous) presentation lowers choice satisfaction and commitment due to increased feelings of hope.
Study 3:
Strict and flexible sequential (vs. simultaneous) presentations lower choice commitment; strict sequential presentation yields the lowest commitment.
Strict sequential (vs. flexible sequential and simultaneous) presentation increases regret.
Strict and flexible sequential (vs. simultaneous) presentations increase hope.
Regret and hope mediate the negative effect of sequential (vs. simultaneous) presentation on commitment.
In practice, this means that people are less satisfied with the process of dating due to feelings of regret about foregone options. Interestingly, contrary to the original findings, in our study, regret emerged as the primary mediator, while hope remained unaffected by the mechanism of option presentation. We posit three key reasons why regret, rather than hope, serves as the primary explanatory factor in the context of dating:
Firstly, the impact of a dating decision on one’s life is more profound compared to choices like chocolate or wine. Given the constraint of choosing only one date partner, individuals may find themselves rejecting options they genuinely liked and would have pursued in real-life (i.e., offline) scenarios, triggering feelings of regret.
Secondly, the choice of a potential life partner is inherently more definite than the choice of chocolate or wine. While people might continuously seek the next best beverage or treat, this dynamic will likely be less pronounced when it comes to selecting a partner. Consequently, hope is naturally less relevant in the latter context.
Thirdly, evaluating the actual profile of a potential dating candidate and assessing how well their characteristics align with one’s preferences is more complex than evaluating less intricate objects. This heightened uncertainty in the dating context makes foregone options more prone to triggering feelings of regret compared to choices involving chocolate or wine, where attributes can be more objectively evaluated, and decisions are marked by lesser uncertainty.
To sum up, choosing a dating or potential life partner is more consequential than selecting wine or chocolate, making feelings of regret more likely to emerge. In contrast, hope is less relevant due to the more definite nature of life partner decisions.
Although presenting options simultaneously might result in higher levels of satisfaction and less regret in the dating context, it may not be a practical alternative to sequential option presentation. The sheer volume of potential options would significantly increase complexity for the consumer if presented all at once. However, there are strategies to make sequential option presentation more appealing. For example, an option to undo swipes could positively impact consumer satisfaction. This feature would especially benefit women, who are least satisfied with their choice in a strict sequential condition without the option to revisit previous choices. Additionally, a more personalized dating app algorithm that provides individual partner suggestions might reduce the number of presented options and enhance the user experience, leading to less regret and greater satisfaction regardless of the option presentation mode. Therefore, our findings advocate for a more personalized and flexible presentation environment.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Experimental prompts and procedures of option presentations
Condition
1a
1b
2
3a
3b
Simultaneous
Simultaneous
(Stepwise)
Flexible
Sequential
Strict
Sequential
Strict
Sequential (Repeat)
Experiment
1
2
1
1
2
Prompt
IT’S DATING TIME!
Imagine you’re in search of love and you’re on an online dating platform. On the next page you have the chance to look at five (Study 2: six) dating profiles that show people who find you interesting and want a date with you.
Click on “Continue” to look at the profiles and choose your perfect date!
IT’S DATING TIME!
Imagine you’re in search of love and you’re on an online dating platform. On the next page you have the chance to look at two pages, each containing three dating profiles that show people who find you interesting and want a date with you.
Click on “Continue” to look at the profiles and choose your perfect date!
IT’S DATING TIME!
Imagine you’re in search of love and you’re on an online dating platform. On the next five (Study 2: six) pages you have the chance to look at five (Study 2: six) dating profiles that show people who find you interesting and want a date with you.
ATTENTION!
You must make your decision after you've clicked through the profiles. You can't go back and take a second glance when making your decision.
Click on “Continue” to look at the profiles and choose your perfect date!
IT’S DATING TIME!
Imagine you’re in search of love and you’re on an online dating platform. On the next five (Study 2: six) pages you have the chance to look at five (Study 2: six) dating profiles that show people who find you interesting and want a date with you.
ATTENTION!
As soon as you choose a profile (“Yes”) you can't choose any other profile, you can just have a look at them.
As soon as you dismiss a profile (“NO”) you can't go back to this profile.
Click on “Continue” to look at the profiles and choose your perfect date!
IT’S DATING TIME!
Imagine you’re in search of love and you’re on an online dating platform. On the next six pages you have the chance to look at six dating profiles that show people who find you interesting and want a date with you.
ATTENTION!
As soon as you choose a profile (“Yes”) you can't choose any other profile, you can just have a look at them.
Click on “Continue” to look at the profiles and choose your perfect date!
Procedure
• Participants choose one of the candidates after seeing all profiles at the same time.
• Participants choose one of the candidates after seeing all profiles in chunks of three at the same time.
• Participants choose one of the candidates after seeing all candidates sequentially.
• There is no option to reconsider prior profiles.
• Participants have to disapprove a candidate to see the next.
• They make a choice after each individual candidate.
• There is no option to reconsider prior profiles.
• Participants have to disapprove a candidate to see the next.
• They make a choice after each individual candidate.
• After having made their choice, they are being given an option to repeat the procedure.
