The Paradox of ‘Shrekking’: Why Dating Down Backfires

By Heartscape Intern, Tan Min Wen

Shrekking refers to the act or practice of purposefully dating someone who one considers unattractive (or less attractive than someone one would normally choose) on the theory that they will prove a kinder and more caring partner. (Merriam-Webster, n.d.)

Trending since late 2025, the new internet slang ‘shrekking’ describes a concept that far precedes the coining of the term itself. Before ‘shrekking,’ we had ‘punching below your weight,’ and even before that, ‘settling.’ No matter the word used, the meaning is the same: to date someone you perceive as less attractive than you could potentially date. But unlike its predecessors, the definition of ‘shrekking’ names explicitly the reason for dating down, which is to guarantee your partner will treat you well.

The Psychology of 'Shrekking'

Thibaut’s (1959, pp. 21–23) Interdependence Theory identifies two evaluative standards that determine relationship satisfaction that can help us to understand the appeal of ‘shrekking.’

The first is the comparison level (CL), which is the baseline standard for what an individual believes a relationship should look like based on past experiences and what they think they deserve. This is the standard against which an individual evaluates how rewarding the relationship is. If the relationship outcomes fall below the CL, individuals perceive the relationship to be unrewarding; if relationship outcomes fall above the CL, the relationship is perceived as rewarding. 

The second is the comparison level for alternatives (CL-alt), which is the standard against which an individual evaluates whether they can find better (more rewarding and less costly) alternatives if they leave their current relationship. If relationship outcomes fall below CL-alt, individuals will leave the relationship in pursuit of better available opportunities.

‘Shrekking’ is, in effect, an attempt to manipulate this matrix in your favour to grant yourself power. According to Thibault (1959, pp. 124–125), an individual A has power over their partner B when B is dependent on A. One type of power, fate control, cannot be altered by a change in B’s behaviour, and is instead determined by B’s average C-alt. In a typical relationship, both members of the couple are interdependent, thus granting both some power over the other and allowing them to mutually influence each other’s behaviour and values, increasing relationship satisfaction for both parties. However, choosing a partner less attractive than you keeps your partner’s CL-alt artificially low, while your own CL-alt stays high. This grants you power over your partner without offering the same power back to them.

"From  the point  of view  of the individual member  of  a dyad,  the possession of superior power has a number  of possible advantages.  It tends to relieve him  of the necessity  of paying  close attention  to his partner's  actions and  of being careful  in his own actions.  His power also makes it possible for him to determine the course and pace of the interaction  and  to  insist  upon  receiving  the  better  of  the  outcomes potentially available to him in the relationship." (Thibaut, 1959, p. 125)

In theory, ‘shrekking’ seems beneficial for a variety of reasons. It makes your partner unlikely to leave you while you keep your escape hatch open, ready to leave at the first sign of trouble. It allows you to manipulate relationship outcomes to your satisfaction, and to sample a relationship that promises stability without having to become dependent on your partner (Thibaut, 1959, pp. 70–72). Altogether, it seems to manufacture a high-reward low-cost outcome for yourself. 

But while ‘shrekking’ may seem like a great move on paper, it often does not guarantee the relationship stability or satisfaction it sets out to obtain.

Getting 'Shrekked'

Hand in hand with the term ‘shrekking’ is the phrase ‘getting shrekked,’ which is when one purposely dates ‘below their means’ and still ends up getting hurt or left by their partner anyway (Caramela, 2025). This happens for a multitude of reasons, in part due to a pre-occupation with CL-alt while forgetting that CL also matters.

Your CL will not be met. Being with a partner whom you chose specifically for being less attractive than you means that they already fall below your CL; you begin the relationship already unsatisfied. You can use the power you have over your partner to try to alter their behaviour and make the relationship more rewarding for yourself, but it is difficult, if not impossible, for your partner to reach a bar when they were chosen for not meeting it in the first place. Additionally, Thibaut (1959, p. 125) found that power in a relationship is not unlimited; with repeated use, you will gradually lose the ability to influence your partner into the direction you desire. In other words, you cannot shape your partner into meeting your CL, and repeated attempts to do so will eventually be met with resistance or pushback.

You may also fall below your partner’s CL. Entering a relationship perceiving your partner as unattractive or of ‘lower value’ predisposes you to viewing them as ‘less than’ throughout the relationship, and feeling certain entitlements from your partner as they should be ‘grateful’ to you for dating them. This will inevitably leak into the way you treat your partner, and will not go unnoticed by them. From your partner’s perspective, the perceived reward of the relationship outcome decreases without any decrease in cost. Eventually, your partner may decide that your treatment of them falls below their CL and leave you.

Interdependence is required for a healthy relationship. If you enter a relationship with the primary goal of avoiding dependence so you don’t get hurt by your partner, you naturally avoid the love and intimacy that comes with vulnerability. You cannot negotiate a satisfactory, stable, and mutually-rewarding relationship without allowing your partner to also have the power to influence you (Thibaut, 1959, pp. 124–125).

Your partner’s CL-alt is not fixed. CL-alt is a subjective, perceived standard that depends on the salience of alternative relationship outcomes (Thibaut, 1959, pp. 21–22). As such, your partner’s subjective judgement of their CL-alt can increase with new information, new potential romantic interests, or even a rise in self-esteem. At this point, the entire arrangement, built on the assumed scarcity of options, has no foundation left to stand on.

Love Is Not a Power Play

There is a broader pattern at play in how a generation raised on swipe-based dating apps and curated social media feeds views and talks about dating. We commodify ourselves and others to optimise relationship outcomes, treating the dating scene like a marketplace to be hedged and risk-managed instead of a site where relationships are built mutually. ‘Shrekking’ fits neatly into this pattern, an avoidance mechanism carefully dressed up as a strategy. 

But treating love as a contest for leverage will never lead to stability or satisfaction. ‘Shrekking’ only makes sense if you believe a relationship needs a person with the upper hand and a person who’s grateful just to be there. Interdependence Theory undercuts this premise, showing that the only way to produce security is to stop trying to engineer power into your hands, and instead let yourself lean on a partner whom you value and love.

Real intimacy isn’t won by making sure you have more options than your partner does. It’s built by two people who know they have options, and choose each other anyway — not out of scarcity, gratitude, avoidance, or fear, but because being together actually meets what they each believe they deserve. 

If ‘shrekking’ is something you’ve found yourself doing in your relationships, or if the idea of it sounds tempting to you, perhaps it’s worth digging deeper and asking yourself what makes it so appealing to you. What is driving this desire for the upper hand in your relationship? Perhaps it is a fear of abandonment and rejection making you crave for a partner who has no choice but to stay; perhaps it is a need for power and control stemming from past experiences with unpredictability or powerlessness. Or maybe it’s low self-worth, telling you that any partner you actually find attractive will ‘come to their senses’ and leave; or a fear of intimacy and vulnerability making you avoid an ‘equal’ partner who will notice your flaws and insecurities. 

Whatever the underlying reasons, exploring them can offer you keen insights into your relationship patterns and behaviours — and you don’t have to do it alone. If you’re interested in finding out more about yourself, our Heartscape team can help you to explore your psychological drivers within the safe, non-judgemental environment of the therapy room.

References

Caramela, S. (2025, August 23). There's a New Dating Term Called 'Shrekking'—and It's Not What You Think. VICE. https://www.vice.com/en/article/theres-a-new-dating-term-called-shrekking-and-its-not-what-you-think/ 

Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Shrekking. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved August 26, 2026, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/slang/shrekking 

Thibaut, J. W. (1959). The Social Psychology of Groups (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315135007