It is not surprising that the Internet has become a means by which people expand their social networks and form close relationships. Almost every online-dating Web site provides members with search tools. However, do users truly benefit from more complete searches of a large pool of possibilities? The present study, based on the cognitive perspective, examined whether more search options triggered excessive searching, leading to worse choices and poorer selectivity. We argue that more search options lead to less selective processing by reducing users' cognitive resources, distracting them with irrelevant information, and reducing their ability to screen out inferior options. A total of 128 Taiwanese late adolescents and adults with experience in online romantic relationships participated in an experimental study. After entering the characteristics they found desirable in a partner in such a relationship, participants were randomly assigned to receive one of three levels of available profiles. The dependent measures consisted of the number of profiles searched, the average preference difference for all profiles viewed, the preference difference for the chosen profile, and the degree of selectivity. These measures were used to determine whether more attention was devoted to better alternatives and less attention to worse alternatives. The data supported the predictions. Implications and directions for further research are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Social distance regulations have been widely adopted during the global COVID‐19 pandemic. From an evolutionary perspective, social connection and money are interchangeable subsistence resources for human survival. The substitutability principle of human motivation posits that scarcity in one domain (e.g., social connection) could motivate people to acquire or maintain resources in another domain (e.g., money). Two experiments were conducted to test the possibility that COVID‐19 social distancing enhances the desire for money. Results showed that compared with controls, participants receiving social distancing primes (via recollection of experiences of social distancing or a Chinese glossary‐search task) offered less money in the dictator game, showed lower willingness towards charitable donation (Experiment 1; N = 102), donated less money to a student fund, and rated money as having more importance (Experiment 2; N = 140). Our findings have far‐reaching implications for financial decisions, charitable donations, and prosociality during and after the COVID‐19 pandemic.