When Love Feels Scarce: The Psychology Behind "Simping"

Sunday, July 5, 2026.

Internet slang comes and goes. Human misery has much longer staying power.

Every generation invents a new insult for an old psychological problem.

In 2026, the insult is: Simp.

The word is usually aimed at a man who gives too much, waits too long, spends too freely, apologizes too quickly, and remains devoted to someone who has not earned—or perhaps never intended to earn—that devotion.

The internet laughs.

But researchers asked a different question:

What problem is this behavior trying to solve?

That is almost always the more interesting question.

A recent study published in the Journal of Personalitysuggests that the strongest predictor of these excessive and obsessive courtship behaviors isn't low attractiveness, poor social status, or even a man's own perception of his "mate value."

Instead, the best predictor was remarkably simple.

A fear of being single.

At first glance, that sounds almost disappointingly obvious.

Of course lonely people pursue relationships.

But look more carefully.

The researchers were not studying ordinary dating behavior.

They were studying excessive pursuit.

The gifts that seem out of proportion.

The constant reassurance.

The endless texting.

The immediate availability.

The inability to tolerate ambiguity.

The emotional investment that grows larger even as the relationship itself grows smaller.

Those behaviors are not simply expressions of affection.

They are attempts to manage uncertainty.

That distinction changes everything.

Love Is Not the Same Thing as Urgency

One of the quiet tragedies of modern dating is that we frequently confuse intensity with love.

They are not the same emotion.

Love says,

"I hope you choose me."

Urgency says,

"I need you to choose me."

Love allows another person freedom.

Urgency quietly experiences another person's freedom as danger.

Love survives disappointment.

Urgency experiences disappointment as catastrophe.

From a distance, both people may appear deeply devoted.

Inside their nervous systems, however, entirely different stories are unfolding.

One is giving.

The other is negotiating.

Every Behavior seeks to Solve a Problem

One lesson therapists learn fairly early is that very few behaviors are random.

Every behavior solves something.

Anger often solves helplessness.

Withdrawal sometimes solves overwhelm.

Perfectionism solves uncertainty.

Avoidance solves anticipated shame.

Obsessive pursuit also solves a problem.

It temporarily quiets anxiety.

Sending another text reduces uncertainty—for about five minutes.

Buying another gift creates the comforting illusion that something useful has been done.

Checking someone's social media produces the brief feeling of staying connected.

Offering endless emotional availability creates the hope that indispensability will eventually become love.

These strategies are understandable.

They are also remarkably ineffective.

The Economics of Emotional Scarcity

My graduate work in labor studies taught me something that unexpectedly became useful in couples therapy.

Markets change behavior long before they change outcomes.

Workers who believe jobs are scarce negotiate differently than workers who believe opportunities are abundant.

Whether their perception is objectively correct is almost beside the point.

Belief changes behavior first.

Dating often follows the same psychological rule.

When someone becomes convinced,

"There aren't many good partners left..."

or

"People my age don't find love..."

or

"This may be my last real chance..."

they begin negotiating from scarcity rather than confidence.

Scarcity is psychologically expensive.

People accept terms they would normally reject.

They overlook incompatibilities.

They minimize disrespect.

They rationalize mixed signals.

They volunteer more effort while asking for less in return.

Not because they suddenly have poorer judgment.

Because scarcity changes judgment.

Behavioral economists have documented this phenomenon across remarkably different domains.

When resources feel limited—whether money, food, housing, or time—the human mind narrows its focus. Immediate relief begins to dominate long-term thinking. Decision-making becomes more urgent and less flexible.

Love appears surprisingly vulnerable to the same psychological forces.

The Auction That Exists Mostly in Our Heads

Imagine attending an auction.

Only one painting remains.

Everyone else in the room seems eager to buy it.

The bidding accelerates.

People stop asking what the painting is worth.

Instead, they ask what losing would feel like.

Dating sometimes creates exactly this illusion.

Not because potential partners are actually disappearing.

Because comparison has become constant.

Social media.

Dating apps.

Engagement announcements.

Wedding photographs.

Vacation selfies.

Pregnancy reveals.

Anniversaries.

Algorithms have quietly turned everyone else's happiness into our daily background scenery.

No previous generation had this level of continuous social comparison.

Every swipe suggests someone else is succeeding.

Every scrolling session subtly whispers,

"You're running behind."

Humans have a name for this.

Scarcity.

And scarcity has always been one of humanity's least trustworthy advisors.

The Difference Between Generosity and Bargaining

Healthy relationships are generous.

Partners make sacrifices.

They offer support.

They show kindness without keeping score.

None of that resembles the behavior described in this study.

Because healthy generosity has no hidden invoice.

Emotional bargaining does.

Its unspoken contract sounds something like this:

"If I become indispensable enough..."

"If I never complain..."

"If I always answer immediately..."

"If I give enough..."

"Then surely you won't leave."

Most partners cannot articulate why this dynamic feels uncomfortable.

They simply know that something feels unexpectedly heavy.

The gifts arrive carrying invisible obligations.

The compliments seek reassurance.

The attention asks for repayment.

Affection slowly transforms into negotiation.

Ironically, the more urgently someone attempts to secure closeness, the more difficult closeness often becomes.

Not because generosity is unattractive.

Because desperation is exhausting.

And the two are far easier to confuse than most of us would like to admit.

Attachment Doesn't Ask, "Do You Love Me?"

It asks something older:

"Am I safe?"

This is one reason Attachment Theory remains one of the most useful frameworks for understanding adult relationships.

We do not simply fall in love as adults.

We bring into adulthood a nervous system that has spent decades learning what closeness means.

For someone with relatively secure attachment, uncertainty is uncomfortable but tolerable. A delayed text message may be irritating, but it does not become evidence that the relationship is collapsing.

For someone with anxious attachment, the same delay can feel profoundly different.

The nervous system begins filling in missing information.

"They're pulling away."

"I did something wrong."

"They're losing interest."

"I need to fix this."

That last sentence often becomes the beginning of excessive pursuit.

Not because the individual lacks intelligence.

Not because they lack dignity.

Because their nervous system has confused proximity with safety.

That confusion makes perfect sense.

As children, closeness often did mean safety.

Adults sometimes continue using childhood solutions to solve adult uncertainty.

Why Breadcrumbs Keep People Hooked

One of the most overlooked findings in behavioral psychology helps explain why some people become increasingly devoted to partners who give them very little in return.

The answer is intermittent reinforcement.

Imagine a slot machine.

If every pull loses, people eventually stop playing.

If every pull wins, the game becomes predictable.

But if rewards arrive unpredictably—sometimes yes, sometimes no—the behavior becomes remarkably resistant to extinction.

The same principle appears in human relationships.

A warm text after three days of silence.

An affectionate weekend followed by emotional distance.

A promise of commitment that never quite arrives.

Enough encouragement to sustain hope.

Enough inconsistency to prevent security.

Researchers have known for decades that intermittent reinforcement creates some of the most persistent patterns of behavior in both animals and humans. It is one reason gambling can become addictive.

It can also make unhealthy relationships extraordinarily difficult to leave.

The anxious partner isn't simply pursuing affection.

They're pursuing the possibility of affection.

And possibility is often more intoxicating than certainty.

The Sunk-Cost Trap

Economists have another name for what often happens next:

The sunk-cost fallacy.

Imagine spending six months pursuing someone.

Perhaps you've rearranged your schedule, traveled long distances, bought thoughtful gifts, introduced them to your family, and invested hundreds of hours trying to make the relationship work.

Walking away no longer feels like ending a disappointing relationship.

It feels like admitting that all of those investments accomplished nothing.

So partners invest more.

Not because the relationship has improved.

Because abandoning the investment has become psychologically painful.

Therapists see this pattern frequently.

"So much time."

"So much effort."

"I can't quit now."

Unfortunately, relationships do not care how much emotional capital has already been invested.

They respond only to what is happening now.

The Confidence Paradox

One of the more surprising findings in the study was that men's self-perceived attractiveness and mate value did not strongly predict these excessive behaviors.

That is worth pausing over.

Popular culture often assumes that obsessive pursuit reflects low confidence.

Reality appears more complicated.

Human beings are not always reliable judges of themselves.

Some underestimate their strengths.

Others overestimate them.

Still others feel entirely confident until one particular relationship activates an old wound.

The issue may not be overall self-esteem at all.

It may be context.

A person can feel competent professionally, socially, intellectually, and financially while simultaneously believing that one particular romantic partner is somehow beyond their reach.

That perceived imbalance—not objective reality—may be enough to activate scarcity.

Psychology has always cared less about reality than perception.

Because perception is what drives behavior.

The Hidden Cost of Negotiating for Love

Couples therapists sometimes hear statements like these:

"I do everything for her."

"I've given him everything."

"I don't know what else I can do."

Notice the language.

Everything.

Always.

Never enough.

Those words usually signal that the relationship has quietly shifted from mutual exchange to emotional accounting.

Healthy relationships involve generosity.

Unhealthy relationships often involve transactions disguised as generosity.

One partner keeps hoping that enough patience, enough gifts, enough understanding, enough availability, or enough sacrifice will eventually produce certainty.

But certainty cannot be purchased.

It can only be freely offered.

This is one of the hardest truths in intimate relationships.

Love grows in freedom.

It withers under negotiation.

Beyond Internet Slang

Perhaps we should retire the word simp.

Not because the behavior doesn't exist.

Because the label explains almost nothing.

It tells us who to ridicule.

It tells us very little about why the behavior develops.

Behind many excessive romantic pursuits lies something deeply human.

The longing to matter.

The fear of being left behind.

The hope that enough effort can eliminate uncertainty.

None of those desires are shameful.

Most of us have experienced some version of them.

The difficulty begins when anxiety becomes the architect of our relationships.

Fear has terrible taste in partners.

It also gives terrible dating advice.

It encourages us to confuse persistence with intimacy, sacrifice with compatibility, and proximity with love.

Those are expensive mistakes.

The Opposite of Simping

The opposite of excessive pursuit is not indifference.

It is not emotional games.

It is not pretending not to care.

The opposite is abundance.

It is the quiet confidence that no single relationship determines your worth.

It is the willingness to let your life partner choose freely—even when that freedom includes the possibility of saying no.

Paradoxically, this mindset often makes life partners more attractive.

Not because they become mysterious.

Because they stop negotiating against themselves.

The healthiest relationships are rarely built by the person who gives the most.

They are built by two partners who can each tolerate uncertainty without abandoning their dignity.

Healthy love has never required becoming smaller to keep someone else close.

It asks something much more difficult.

To remain fully yourself—even while hoping someone else chooses to stay.

Love Was Never Meant to Be an Auction

Perhaps the most important lesson from this research has very little to do with internet slang.

It has to do with how human beings behave whenever something precious begins to feel scarce.

We become less patient.

Less discerning.

More impulsive.

More willing to compromise ourselves.

Social science researchers have documented these patterns in financial markets, gambling, food insecurity, and organizational behavior.

Scarcity narrows attention. The future shrinks. Immediate relief becomes more valuable than long-term well-being.

Love is not immune.

When someone begins believing that romantic opportunities are disappearing—that everyone else has found their person, that time is running out, that they have somehow missed their chance—they stop asking an important question:

"Is this relationship good for me?"

Instead, they begin asking:

"How do I keep this relationship from ending?"

Those are profoundly different questions.

One evaluates compatibility.

The other negotiates survival.

What Therapists See

Couples therapists rarely meet someone who says:

"I think I'm simping."

Instead, they hear something much more recognizable:

"I don't know why I keep trying so hard."

"I feel stupid, but I can't stop."

"Every time I decide to move on, she texts me."

"I know this isn't healthy, but I keep thinking things will change."

These are not the words of foolish people.

They are the words of people whose nervous systems have become organized around uncertainty.

Once anxiety takes over, the goal quietly changes.

The goal is no longer building a relationship.

The goal becomes escaping fear.

Unfortunately, fear is almost impossible to satisfy.

It always asks for one more text.

One more sacrifice.

One more explanation.

One more chance.

The Dignity of Walking Away

One of the quiet milestones of emotional maturity is realizing that not every relationship can be saved—and not every relationship should be.

That realization is painful.

It is also liberating.

Walking away from someone who cannot or will not reciprocate your investment is not failure.

It is evidence that your self-respect has finally become more valuable than your uncertainty.

Healthy relationships require vulnerability.

They do not require self-erasure.

There is an important difference.

Vulnerability says,

"This is who I am."

Self-erasure says,

"I'll become whoever you need me to be."

One invites intimacy.

The other postpones rejection.

Only one has a future.

A Better Question

Perhaps we have been asking the wrong question all along.

Instead of asking:

"Why do some men simp?"

we might ask, instead:

"What happens to the human heart and mind when love begins to feel scarce?"

That question is larger.

It includes both men and women.

It includes teenagers and retirees.

It includes first loves, long marriages, affairs, divorces, and dating apps.

It even includes the quiet fear many happily married people occasionally experience when they wonder whether they are still enough for the person they love.

Scarcity is not a dating problem.

It is a human problem. I suggest we start seeing it that way.

Healthy love is generous. Anxiety is generous with an invoice.

Final Thoughts

The internet enjoys coining new words and inventing labels. I’m usually a fan of these efforts.

But science-based couples therapy prefers explanations.

Calling someone a "simp" tells us where to direct our laughter.

It tells us almost nothing about the forces shaping that person's behavior.

Behind many obsessive romantic pursuits is not an excess of love.

It is an excess of uncertainty.

It is the painful belief that love is running out, opportunities are disappearing, and this one relationship has become the final measure of one's worth.

The tragedy is that fear rarely brings people closer together.

More often, it convinces them to bargain away the very qualities that make intimacy possible: confidence, curiosity, reciprocity, and dignity.

The opposite of desperate pursuit is not emotional distance.

It is emotional abundance.

It is the quiet belief that your value does not rise and fall according to another person's willingness to choose you.

The healthiest relationships are not built by convincing someone to stay.

They are built by two life partners who remain free enough to choose each other, again and again.

And perhaps that is the simplest definition of mature love.

Not proving your worth.

But knowing it before anyone else does.

Be Well, Stay Kind, and Godspeed.

REFERENCES:

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment (2nd ed.). Basic Books.

Ho, D., Tan, K., Li, N. P., & Sim, L. (2025). The (simp)le truth about excessive and obsessive romantic behaviors in men. Journal of Personality. Advance online publication.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2016). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2013). Scarcity: Why having too little means so much. Times Books.

Park, Y., MacDonald, G., & Impett, E. A. (2020). To what extent do people with a fear of being single place their romantic relationships above other life domains? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 37(8–9), 2467–2487. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407520937463

Spielmann, S. S., MacDonald, G., Maxwell, J. A., Joel, S., Peragine, D., Muise, A., & Impett, E. A. (2013). Settling for less out of fear of being single. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(6), 1049–1073. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034628

Thaler, R. H. (2015). Misbehaving: The making of behavioral economics. W. W. Norton.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683