Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Freedom From Choice: Not What You Want
The journal Psychology and Marketing questions some recent academic research indicating that too much choice makes us unhappy and confused. The precis:
Consider the seminal paper by Iyengar and Lepper (pdf) that showed 30 per cent of participants offered a choice of 6 jams bought one, compared with just 3 per cent of participants offered 24 different jams. It seems we can be paralysed by having too much choice, perhaps because feeling you've made the wrong choice is unpleasant, and the more options there are, the more likely it is that we'll choose the wrong one.
But now Benjamin Scheibehenne and colleagues have waded into the topic with the claim that the "too-much-choice effect" has in fact failed to appear in many experiments, and with the real-life observation that shops that offer more consumer choice tend to be more successful.
In a series of experiments, Scheibehenne's team tested 598 participants who were asked to choose from among restaurants, charities and music downloads. Throughout, they varied factors that they hoped might explain why the too-much-choice effect sometimes occurs and sometimes doesn't.....
For most of the experiments, the too-much-choice effect wasn't actually observed and when it did, the only relevant factor which increased the effect was the need to justify one's choice.
"The fact that most of the variables that we tested were not sufficient to elicit choice overload suggests that the too-much-choice effect is less robust than previously thought," the researchers said.
Virginia Postrel gives you a variety of arguments to choose from as to why the "too much choice hurts us" arguments ignore vital insights about human variety, and personal psychology and responsibility, in her brilliant essay in Reason magazine's June 2005 issue.
[Link via Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution]
|4.3.09 @ 9:35AM|#
Consider the seminal paper by Iyengar and Lepper (pdf) that
showed 30 per cent of participants offered a choice of 6 jams
bought one, compared with just 3 per cent of participants offered
24 different jams.
Sweet, sweet grant money...
T|4.3.09 @ 9:35AM|#
Ooooh, oooooh!! Pick me! Pick me!
With a name like Smucker's, it's got to smuck.
High Every Body|4.3.09 @ 9:36AM|#
So, the issue here is that experimentors cannot create an
experiment that isolates why people buy lots of stuff when they
have lotsa choice, therefore reality is wrong and the lab is
right?
I wonder if this could be applied to the AGW debate? Not directly,
just the attitude of "researchers".
High Every Body|4.3.09 @ 9:37AM|#
Smucker's Strawberry Jam,
Too bad your name is not "10,000 Nuns and Orphans"
Fluffy|4.3.09 @ 9:41AM|#
I disagree with High Every Body.
I think it's pointless to experiment on this subject because lab
conditions can not duplicate the circumstances surrounding the "too
much choice" phenomenon, for a pretty simple reason: if I know I'm
in an experiment, I'll probably choose something for the hell of
it, because I will be in a "test taking" mindset.
The real impact of excessive choice is apathy, and by definition
you can't really reproduce apathy in a lab experiment.
Smucker\'s Strawberry Jam|4.3.09 @ 9:42AM|#
Too bad your name is not "10,000 Nuns and
Orphans"
I don't get it.
High Every Body|4.3.09 @ 9:44AM|#
Smucker's Strawberry Jam,
John Beloshi line in a SNL skit back when Chevy Chase was funny.
Research "Fluckers" SNL.
|4.3.09 @ 9:44AM|#
I'm with Fluffy. Ever play poker just for chips? Perceived lack of real-world consequences changes behavior dramatically.
High Every Body|4.3.09 @ 9:45AM|#
Fluffy,
Well spoken in revealing your true colors. that is why I am a big
free speech person.
|4.3.09 @ 9:48AM|#
I'm noy psycologically paralyzed by options, I may make a
"wrong" choice (Damn, I should have gotten the boysenberry) but for
some reason I don't let it bother me.
Life in America must suck for the indecisive.
T|4.3.09 @ 9:48AM|#
The real impact of excessive choice is apathy, and by
definition you can't really reproduce apathy in a lab
experiment.
I thought that's what high school was - a lab experiment to induce
apathy.
|4.3.09 @ 9:49AM|#
Life in America must suck for the indecisive.
Actually, they are in the limbo of not being able to decide if it
sucks or not.
|4.3.09 @ 9:53AM|#
So, the issue here is that experimentors cannot create an
experiment that isolates why people buy lots of stuff when they
have lotsa choice, therefore reality is wrong and the lab is
right?
I think its more like the lab experiments initially showing a
too-much-choice effect have not been replicable, casting doubt on
whether the effect exists at all, and if so why.
Chimp #86|4.3.09 @ 9:53AM|#
by definition you can't really reproduce apathy in a lab experiment.
Wanna bet?
Ilsa|4.3.09 @ 9:55AM|#
Oh, I don't know what's right any longer. You have to think for both of us. For all of us.
|4.3.09 @ 9:57AM|#
Life in America must suck for the indecisive.
"I thought I had mono once for an entire year. Turned out I was
just really bored."
Kieffer|4.3.09 @ 9:58AM|#
@Fluffy,
When you begin claiming something to be true with no way to
predict, test and replicate, you've dove from the realm of science
and landed smack in the middle of religion.
There's nothing wrong with believing that your particular religion
is true, but it's no basis on which to compel or constrain the
behavior of others -- which seems to be the end game for studies
such as these. Only bad things have ever come from that.
|4.3.09 @ 9:58AM|#
I've always wondered if experiments in the too-much-choice "effect" are really about learning how to restrict choice in order to guide it. This could be about boosting retail sales or something along the lines of normalizing self-rationing.
libtdem|4.3.09 @ 10:04AM|#
Fluffy,
Alot of behavioral econ studies are actually done in restaurants or
stores, instead of in labs. Not sure if thats the case with this
one, but it might be.
libtdem|4.3.09 @ 10:08AM|#
Actually it looks like they did a pretty good job of making it like real life, at least in the first experiment described. I only skimmed it, but it seemed to be a naturalistic setting.
robc|4.3.09 @ 10:08AM|#
I prefer bars with a large number of quality beers on tap or in
the bottle over those with just 4 taps. Mostly because all 4
choices suck.
On the other hand, I hate places with more taps than they can
reasonably turn over and keep all choices fresh. So, there is a
balance. But the balance isnt over breadth of choice but quality of
available choices.
Kieffer|4.3.09 @ 10:09AM|#
Also, Rush (the band, not the radio guy) would be really
disappointed that the authors of the study failed to classify
"choosing none of the products" as a choice.
Perhaps when presented with such a variety of choices, the
participants perceived it as market signal of abundance rather than
scarcity, and the hoarding instinct was mitigated.
robc|4.3.09 @ 10:10AM|#
Ever play poker just for chips? Perceived lack of real-world
consequences changes behavior dramatically.
I use to play on-line, both in free games and for tiny amounts of
money. A tourney with a $5 buy-in is MUCH tighter than a free roll
tourney.
Reinmoose|4.3.09 @ 10:19AM|#
just some observational data from myself:
I find that the more uniform the choices seem (whether due to the
products being nuanced or due to not having enough information),
the harder and less satisfying I find the decision.
Let's say you don't know jack about wine and you're offered a
selection of 300 different varieties of Chianti. I'm not going to
know which Chianti to buy, and it's going to frustrate the hell out
of me.
But if you give me the choice between a Syrah, Chianti, Merlot,
Cabernet Sauvingnon, Cabernet Franc, White Zinfindel, Beaujolais,
Cotes Du Rhone, and Chardonney... I will have a much happier time
picking.
Warty|4.3.09 @ 10:21AM|#
It is inexcusable that there's no Devo reference in this post. Inexcusable.
Reinmoose|4.3.09 @ 10:26AM|#
What is this!? Yesterday I'm an interior decorator and today I like white zinfindell?!
High Every Body|4.3.09 @ 10:32AM|#
What is this!? Yesterday I'm an interior decorator and today
I like white zinfindell?!
Seems your outward persona is in conflict with your inward image.
Maybe it is the green tea doing it to you?
|4.3.09 @ 10:35AM|#
This whole idea was cooked up to try to downplay the lack of
consumer choice in socialist states. It's been a staple argument
for years - capitalist countries producing 20 different types of
toothpaste is really a bad thing, people don't really want that,
it's wasteful and inefficient, etc.
So some researchers went out specifically looking for evidence to
support it. It's not really a surprise either that there were some
supporting initial studies, or that it doesn't hold up to
scrutiny.
When given the choice between a store with lots of variety and one
with only a little, consumers are going to go with the one that's
got lots of choices. They may be confused by the selection, but
they'd still rather have the choices than not.
High Every Body|4.3.09 @ 10:39AM|#
This whole idea was cooked up to try to downplay the lack of
consumer choice in socialist states. It's been a staple argument
for years - capitalist countries producing 20 different types of
toothpaste is really a bad thing, people don't really want that,
it's wasteful and inefficient, etc.
This sounds familiar and correct.
High Every Body|4.3.09 @ 10:43AM|#
I did hear on one of those Bodaine shows some ex-East German
swearing that fine mustard was only produced in East Germany under
Communist rule.
I would point to cars as a counter comparison.
Reinmoose|4.3.09 @ 10:46AM|#
Seems your outward persona is in conflict with your inward
image. Maybe it is the green tea doing it to you?
That's Bullshit!
[opens bottle of Arbor Mist, starts chugging]
Zeb|4.3.09 @ 11:02AM|#
"When given the choice between a store with lots of variety and
one with only a little, consumers are going to go with the one
that's got lots of choices"
I don't know about these "consumers" you speak of, but I am going
to go to the store that has what I want, regardless of how much
choice they offer, purchase those items and get out as fast as
possible.
libtdem|4.3.09 @ 11:02AM|#
They may be confused by the selection, but they'd still
rather have the choices than not.
This means that a store is better off with more selection, due to
increased customer flow, but may be worse in sales to each
individual customer. It's not a prescription, but if it is the
case, that's interesting to know.
Also, scientists are out to get you. They really are!
T|4.3.09 @ 11:04AM|#
Let's say you don't know jack about wine and you're offered
a selection of 300 different varieties of Chianti. I'm not going to
know which Chianti to buy, and it's going to frustrate the hell out
of me.
You just need some heuristics to guide you in these situations. I
go for the wine with the most inadvertently amusing name. This is
how I've bought bottles of Chateau de Pez and Chateau Cadillac. I
usually get crappy wine this way, but I enjoy the shopping
experience.
libtdem|4.3.09 @ 11:07AM|#
The actual study is worth reading too.
http://www.scheibehenne.de/ScheibehenneGreifenederTodd2009.pdf
It's actually more lab based (and arguably less generalizable) than
the initial study mentioned in the quote.
|4.3.09 @ 11:08AM|#
What the fuck?!? It took until Warty for someone to point out that the title is a Devo reference? I despair for all of you, especially NutraSweet. In ancient Rome, there was poem about a dog who had two bones. He licked the one, and then the other, until he dropped dead.
libtdem|4.3.09 @ 11:09AM|#
They have some good points about choice making behavior, but I would argue that these are far further removed from consumer behavior than the initial ones. Still really interesting and worth reading, though.
BakedPenguin|4.3.09 @ 11:11AM|#
Let's say you don't know jack about wine and you're offered a selection of 300 different varieties of Chianti.
Then I pick up a six of Miller Hi Life (the champagne of beers!).
Easy.
libtdem|4.3.09 @ 11:12AM|#
Honestly, the science reporting, overall, sucks. There are some great articles and posts, but by and large so much crap gets through.
libtdem|4.3.09 @ 11:13AM|#
This was supposed to be in reference to Reason, but in reality, almost all science reporting sucks. Reason might well be better than average, since they avoid alot of the crazyness about videogames and the like.
|4.3.09 @ 11:14AM|#
Let's say you don't know jack about wine and you're offered
a selection of 300 different varieties of Chianti.
The horror. The horror.
High Every Body|4.3.09 @ 11:14AM|#
If Ron Bailey would have posted this it would have had more insightful commentary.
|4.3.09 @ 11:17AM|#
I prefer bars with a large number of quality beers on tap or
in the bottle over those with just 4 taps. Mostly because all 4
choices suck.
Dude, why is it that if a bar has only 4 beers on offer, they are
likely to be Bud, Bud light, Miller, and Coors Light. But if a bar
has 10 beers on tap, it's very unlikely that they will have more
than 2 of the above?
High Every Body|4.3.09 @ 11:29AM|#
domo,
Dude, why is it that if a bar has only 4 beers on offer, they
are likely to be Bud, Bud light, Miller, and Coors Light. But if a
bar has 10 beers on tap, it's very unlikely that they will have
more than 2 of the above?
What is they are run by Communist leaning latte drinkers who are
trying to destroy corporate America?
|4.3.09 @ 11:30AM|#
Domo,
Mediocrity is a choice. Once people make a choice they have a
tendency to reinforce it.
Although, and maybe it's just around here, the four choice tap
scenario is usually Bud Light, Michelob Ultra, Coors or Miller
Light, and Amstel Light or Heineken.
I dare anyone to take the Pepsi challenge and try to taste the
difference between Bud Light, Michelob Ultra, and chilled piss.
|4.3.09 @ 11:32AM|#
Although, and maybe it's just around here, the four choice
tap scenario is usually Bud Light, Michelob Ultra, Coors or Miller
Light, and Amstel Light or Heineken.
That's not a choice. That's a death sentence.
|4.3.09 @ 11:33AM|#
I found years ago I like Henry's ale at room temperature. And Spaten, not the yeasty dark or the pale, but the mid grade stuff.
|4.3.09 @ 11:38AM|#
No I have'nt, it's hard as hell to find the stuff here. The locals feel like big spenders drinkin Milwaukee's Best.
Reinmoose|4.3.09 @ 11:38AM|#
I dare anyone to take the Pepsi challenge and try to taste
the difference between Bud Light, Michelob Ultra, and chilled
piss.
But Miller Lite tastes MORE like chilled piss.. that's what the
commercials were saying, right?
|4.3.09 @ 11:40AM|#
Trying to think if I've ever had a German beer I didn't
like.
Nope. Nothing comes to mind.
[Drifts off into fond revery of the two dozen German beers on tap
at the Essen Haus in Madison.]
|4.3.09 @ 11:42AM|#
The mall in Boise had a little chain restaurant, it had
"italian" in the name. They had 400 beers on tap including 250
imports.
The real beauty of it was the free doubleshot samples you could get
of any draft. Damn good samiches too.
High Every Body|4.3.09 @ 11:50AM|#
I found years ago I like Henry's ale at room
temperature.
I recently dated a chick that I thought would be better that way
too.
|4.3.09 @ 11:52AM|#
I recently dated a chick that I thought would be better that
way too.
Necrophilia? Tofu, I am impressed.
Old Bull Lee|4.3.09 @ 11:58AM|#
When I first heard about this idea it sounded intuitively true -
you can get stressed out when you spend a lot of time comparison
shopping for things and weighing options.
However, I think the satisfaction you get with the superior results
is worth it. You also maybe saving more time and stress (and money
of course) because of your superior results than you invested in
the choosing process.
High Every Body|4.3.09 @ 11:59AM|#
Necrophilia? Tofu, I am impressed.
Not expressing my prefrence, just an improvement to her
performance.
And who are you calling TOFU?
|4.3.09 @ 12:04PM|#
Tofu, I am impressed.
Epi, I think we're supposed to pretend we didn't know this. Or did
I miss the outing?
High Every Body|4.3.09 @ 12:10PM|#
Epi,
Glad you pointed that at Bunny. I can tell from the url . . .
ICK!
T|4.3.09 @ 12:11PM|#
That's not a choice. That's a death sentence.
Reminds me of the billboards A-B would put up around here. "Beer...
or Michelob?" I'll drink beer, thanks. Somebody go get me a Bass or
a Young's Double Chocolate...
|4.3.09 @ 12:12PM|#
Oddly, I couldn't find it on Netflix... I suppose a trip to
Germany simply must be scheduled.
Also, I was referring to the fact that we were supposed to pretend
we didn't know HEB was Tofu, in case that didn't come across.
T|4.3.09 @ 12:13PM|#
Frau Bunny, you really need to see this.
Again proving my contention that while the Japanese are weird, for
the truly perverse the Germans have no equal.
High Every Body|4.3.09 @ 12:17PM|#
FB,
Also, I was referring to the fact that we were supposed to
pretend we didn't know HEB was Tofu, in case that didn't come
across.
But whatever do you mean? [expression of profound shock]
threeofclubs|4.3.09 @ 12:22PM|#
maybe over time everyone has got more used to having lots of different varieties of essentially the same product?
|4.3.09 @ 12:27PM|#
Then I pick up a six of Miller Hi Life (the champagne of
beers!). Easy.
*mimes sticking finger down throat*
High Every Body|4.3.09 @ 12:29PM|#
PB,
I am anti Miller products too. Give me some fresh Foster's any day.
Or a a Bud.
Jervas|4.3.09 @ 12:30PM|#
I think the wine example is apt. I have the same frustration with cigars. I've never really had the time and money to figure out what kind I like so I get annoyed choosing. Information is the key. If you look at a hundred similar choices with no way to distinguish you get frustrated. You can't eliminate the worst options. But the same number of choices with information and choice is great. Most people won't even consider most of the choices, but which choices they do want will vary. So while most individual people don't want a lot of options, somebody wants all of the options.
T|4.3.09 @ 12:42PM|#
So while most individual people don't want a lot of options,
somebody wants all of the options.
The exact reason behind feature creep in software. Most people use
30% of the features, but it's always a different 30%.
|4.3.09 @ 12:55PM|#
I have the same frustration with cigars. I've never really
had the time and money to figure out what kind I like so I get
annoyed choosing.
Beer, wine, cigars . . . the joy is in trying out many of the
options so that you do know what you like. I'm hardly suffering
even when I try a cigar that doesn't make my short list, and now I
know, after years of pleasurable experimentation, that I like
Honduran and Nicaraguan, but tend to not like milder Dominicans
(although some Fuentes are an exception).
Cubans I don't buy, because every dollar spent on a Cuban cigar
enriches the Castros and their odious hangers-on.
Lord Jubjub|4.3.09 @ 1:05PM|#
I think a big factor in choice paralysis is the permanence of
the choice.
If you pick the wrong jam, you throw out the jar and buy
another.
Picking the wrong car or house is a completely different
matter.
|4.3.09 @ 2:15PM|#
If you pick the wrong jam, you throw out the jar and buy
another.
That's not actually how it works for me. I find throwing food out
anathema. So if I don't like the jam, I either suffer until I
finish the jar, learn to like it, or I stop eating jam. At least
until the jam is safely rotten and I can throw it away without a
guilty conscience.
|4.3.09 @ 2:24PM|#
Dude, why is it that if a bar has only 4 beers on offer,
they are likely to be Bud, Bud light, Miller, and Coors Light. But
if a bar has 10 beers on tap, it's very unlikely that they will
have more than 2 of the above?
Good question. In general the store is always going to stock the
most mainstream - i.e. lowest common demoninator - products. But
why they would have less of the major brands if they have a wider
selection is a mystery. Obviously, a more select clientele has
something to do with it. But I wonder if it's a more general
consumer choice phenomenon.
Maybe having more selection encourages consumers to be more picky.
I'm pretty sure that works in the online dating market.
Neil P|4.3.09 @ 2:57PM|#
that showed 30 per cent of participants offered a choice of
6 jams bought one, compared with just 3 per cent of participants
offered 24 different jams.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
Kilroy|4.3.09 @ 4:24PM|#
This reminds me (if I remember correctly) of Dostoevsky's Notes
from Underground, in which his character, Underground Man / Mouse
Man, claims that free will and consciousness taken together are a
curse. Since you can't know for sure the consequences of your
actions, taking any actions are pointless. Essentially the smarter
and more independant-minded you are, the more you will be
incapacitated with indecision and misery because you will
constantly be faced with an endless string of "What if?"
doubts.
Completely ignores the idea of heuristics.
Kilroy|4.3.09 @ 4:26PM|#
However this does seems to be a popular argument against Atheism and agnosticism. All the more reason it's full of crap.
|4.3.09 @ 4:30PM|#
The comments to the effect of "not buying a jam is still a choice" are pretty off the mark. The 6 choices were a subset of the 24. So in a traditional model of purchasing, nobody would buy one of the 6 jams but not one of the 24, since the "correct" flavor would be in both. But this wasn't what happened. Choosing nothing is indeed a choice, but when nothing is more commonly chosen in situations with more options? That's significant.
Fluffy|4.3.09 @ 4:52PM|#
OK, I missed some responses to my initial post yesterday, so
I'll clarify.
No, not every statement not based on experiment is "religious".
Reason is committed, for ideological reasons, to the
proposition "It is impossible for increased choice to result in
lower satisfaction." I can refute that proposition without
experiment, because a single instance where satisfaction
drops in the context of increased choice refutes it completely, and
that means I can validly argue from anecdotal evidence. If I have
ever personally experienced an instance where increased choice
lowered my personal level of satisfaction, then the proposition is
refuted. Period. So even if I am right that no lab experiment will
ever uncover proof that it's possible for increased choice to lower
satisfaction, I can still argue that this is so from my own
experience, without my argument being "faith-based".
When I was young, we only had a small number of television
channels, and VCR's did not exist yet. So at any given moment in
time, the choices I had for movies to watch were whatever was on TV
or coming up on TV soon. Now, on the other hand, I have hundreds of
TV channels, movies I can watch either in-demand or on pay per
view, hundreds of DVD's and VHS tapes that I own, and tens of
thousands that I could quickly rent, and/or illegally download with
a few hours of patience.
So, obviously, I have vastly more choice in the movies I watch now,
than I did when I was young.
But I got greater satisfaction out of watching movies back when I
had fewer choices.
One element of my satisfaction was the rarity of the event. For
example, channel 9 in New York used to show the original "King
Kong" every Thanksgiving Day. And I would watch it every year on
that day and enjoy it a great deal. Now I own three different
versions of King Kong on DVD and really can't be bothered to watch
any of them because I don't give a shit.
And it's not a matter of a single film that maybe I have seen too
many times anyway. This phenomenon is true of every last type of
entertainment content. Now that it's all instantly available, I
find that it's all equally worthless. Entertainment was worth more
to me when there was less of it and I had to wait for it once in a
while.
Therefore, on the basis of my experience, I absolutely
know that it's possible for increased choice to lower
satisfaction.
Sorry, Reason. It doesn't matter what dumbass leftists
would want to use such an observation to achieve in legislative
terms. It's just true, no matter what legislation some asshole
might write if I admit that it's true.
Kilroy|4.3.09 @ 5:11PM|#
Fluffy,
I see your point, but disagree. I believe the cause of your
dissatisfaction with King Kong (for example) is an increase in
availability, rather than choice. In this case choice is simply
incidental and not particularly relevant.
If you only had one single opportunity to watch King Kong each year
you'd probably still enjoy it, and it would probably not be
impacted by any other channels on at the same time showing other
things.
Fluffy|4.3.09 @ 5:39PM|#
Kilroy,
I think that trying to draw a distinction between choice and
availability would get pretty slippery if we tried to really break
it down.
To me as a practical matter if we're talking about consumer choices
then choice and availability are the same thing.
If you limited the availability of one or more movies to once a
year, you have thereby limited the range of choices on all other
days by one or more movies.
I'm trying to think of more examples where availability, as opposed
to choice, is the issue, and it's hard to do. Maybe "I enjoyed
gambling more back before there was a casino every hundred feet"
would be an example where the problem is availability - the
gambling is the same, so it's not a matter of too many choices,
it's merely a situation where increased availability has spoiled
the "specialness" of the experience. But in my movie example, it's
hard to make this kind of distinction between availability and the
sheer range of content choices [since both have changed].
Kilroy|4.3.09 @ 5:56PM|#
Fluffy,
We may simply just have to disagree, since I don't believe consumer
choice and availability are the same thing.
To me consumer "choice" is a function of a single decision in a
single instance, whereas "availability" is a function of an item
being available in various quantities and/or over time.
Choice and availability can and do change at the same time and even
for the same reasons, but they're independent functions.
Kilroy|4.3.09 @ 5:59PM|#
Here's an example of availability being a problem rather than choice: I used to live overseas and couldn't get my favorite candy bar because it wasn't available. I had plenty of other candy bars at the local store I chould choose from but the one I wanted wasn't available. Upon returning home I went to the store and bought the candy bar I wanted and it didn't matter that there were 1,000 other candy bars on the shelf I could have bought instead.
Kilroy|4.3.09 @ 6:01PM|#
Now that I live in the US again, I don't really eat that candy bar much any more, and it still have nothing to do with the 1,000 of other candy bars that are on the shelf because as you put it: "Entertainment [the candy bar] was worth more to me when there was less of it and I had to wait for it once in a while."
Fluffy|4.3.09 @ 6:39PM|#
Kilroy,
That set of events could just as easily be used to support my
thesis.
Going overseas had the effect of restricting the range of choices
available to you, and this enhanced the desirability of the candy
bar that was not there.
Now that this limit on the range of your choices has gone away,
your satisfaction with that candy bar has gone down.
If item A is available, it is part of the set of choices. If item B
is not available, it is not part of the set of choices.
I can see what you're saying - that it's possible to increase the
number of choices without impacting the availability of any
particular item [because that one item could always be left out of
the new larger set of choices] - but that's not really the
phenomenon I was trying to describe. In my movies example, the only
way that the range of choices could be increased was to make some
or all movies more generally available, because there's a finite
amount of content made. So "availability vs. choice" is a
distinction without a difference.
Kilroy|4.3.09 @ 7:09PM|#
Fluffy,
I'm afraid we're arguing two different things and may be using
different definitions.
"Going overseas had the effect of restricting the range of choices
available to you, and this enhanced the desirability of the candy
bar that was not there." I disagree, not having access to one candy
bar does not necessarily restrict the range of choices available,
since the selection at the store may be even larger than it is
here. Yes, I lose one option, but I might gain two. I would define
that as an increase in "choice", but perhaps you don't. My point is
that availability decreased and value increased, and choice (my
definition) could have either gone up or down, but really didn't
matter in this case.
Now if an increase in choice produces a better candy bar, then I
may enjoy the old one less, but that would be more than offset by a
greater satisfaction from the better product. Hence choice can
increase satisfaction but not decrease it.
Kilroy|4.3.09 @ 7:14PM|#
Now strictly speaking the phrase "It is impossible for increased
choice to result in lower satisfaction." may be wrong if you pick
something that you find out you hate. But the counter argument
there would be that it would be offset by an increase in
satisfaction with the product you do like.
For example, I like product X and always buy it. Product Y comes
along as an option and I decide to give it a try out of curiosity.
It turns out Y sucks ass and I'm not satisfied at all. I go back to
X and am even more appreciative and satisfied with the awesomeness
of X.
Kilroy|4.3.09 @ 7:16PM|#
. . . and then Y goes out of business and is bought buy Z, which has to make a better product in order to compete with X. It does and Z turns out to be much better. Hence a total increase in satisfaction due to choice.
|4.3.09 @ 8:22PM|#
Fluffy. I don't think it's the increased choice that's making
you less happy. It's that your standards have shifted.
People get comfortable with what they have and their baseline for
pleasure moves to the new norm. You are now accustomed to having
entertainment at your fingertips, so each new piece of it is no
longer novel. It is no longer a deviation above the baseline.
If all those channels and choices suddenly disappeared you would be
pissed off and hate it, though. All of a sudden, being forced to
watch the original King Kong would seem like a punishment and a
confinement.
Humans are novelty seeking and once any and every film becomes
instantly available at your fingertips the novelty of watching any
one of them wears off.
It's also possible that for something to seem rewarding, effort
must be expended to obtain it.
Fluffy|4.3.09 @ 8:48PM|#
If all those channels and choices suddenly disappeared you
would be pissed off and hate it, though. All of a sudden, being
forced to watch the original King Kong would seem like a punishment
and a confinement.
I've continued to think about this question, and I think that part
of the problem is that sets of choices are not static.
My original statement was that I enjoyed movies more when I only
had 3 or 4 choices at any moment in time, than I do now that I have
thousands of choices.
But it's important to note that I would have enjoyed movies a lot
less if there were only 3 or 4 movies TOTAL, and those 3 or 4
movies were always on. I think this relates to what Kilroy was
saying.
So in one respect, I want there to be thousands of movies, so that
they don't repeat themselves - but at the same time, I still assert
that my satisfaction was higher when I could only choose from among
3 or 4 movies at any particular moment in time. So does
that count as wanting more choice or wanting less choice? It's hard
to say, really. The question as framed in the experiments the
article talks about seems to be focused more on limited sets of
goods - measuring the difference between 3 varieties of mustard and
30 varieties of mustard, for example - and that's not really
directly analogous to entertainment.
Fluffy|4.3.09 @ 9:04PM|#
I've been trying to think of an example involving goods instead of entertainments, and the first thing that comes to mind is the offshoot of the slow food movement that advocates deliberately restricting food choices to things that are "in season". This artificial restriction on the range of choices available is held by its advocates to increase satisfaction by duplicating the cycles that created the great world cuisines in the first place. All cuisines are ultimately outgrowths of regional limitations on the foods that could be easily produced in a region and the cycle of excess / absence arising from local production cycles. My only direct experience with this has been via gardening - when you grow things in a garden, for a few weeks a year you have too much of that thing, and need to devise ways to use it up - and those improvised ways to deal with your temporary self-imposed reduction in total food choices ["I'm not going to buy those other things until I get rid of all these tomatoes!"] are often extremely high in satisfaction.
|4.3.09 @ 9:14PM|#
Just a thought - but isn't this result actually a pretty bad
outcome for those who argue that choice is good, and more choice is
better, because rational human beings will be better able make a
selection that maximizes their utility?
According to the researchers, the factor that seems to create the
"too-much-choice" effect is the act of justifying that choice. In
other words, the act of reasoning about and discriminating among
outcomes. If all you do is pick stuff at random, not caring about
utility maximization, then you're fine, cognitively speaking. (I
don't know which restaurant, so I'll just pick one at
random.)
I'd note also, buried in the discussion on page 20, the authors
point out that their studies were not designed to control for the
"no choice" choice, which is the key outcome discriminator in much
of the prior work.
Overall - interesting piece. Not sure it means what some
libertarians want it to mean, however.
|4.3.09 @ 9:48PM|#
I think thre's a certain "forbidden fruit" effect.
That is, if you know that a certain choice is onyl available "for a
limited time", you desire it more, and obtain more pleasure from
selecting it.
I know that the movies I own, I rarely watch. Instead, I tend to
watch something that I just got from netflix. Also when a movie is
available on instant viewing for only a limited time, I'll be more
likely to watch it.
if everything really was available instantly all the time, I'd
probably find some other entertainment that was only temporarily
available.
But I wonder if all this is just my brain playing tricks on me.
Some sort of bias towards desiring the scarce resource first in
order to maximize total resource consumption.
You know, you eat the berries before they rot, you save the
non-perishables into the winter.
economist|4.5.09 @ 12:35AM|#
I tend to think that some choices, like choices between laundry detergents, are usually extraneous. In those cases, I usually go on the cheap. It's easy, and I never feel the need to second-guess the decision.
Fluffy|4.5.09 @ 10:30AM|#
I think thre's a certain "forbidden fruit"
effect.
I've thought about this some more [although I suppose this is
probably a dead thread] and I would come at the question from the
opposite side and say that a high number of choices creates the
conditions for a "meh" effect.
If you have only three choices, it is likely that there will be
wide satisfaction differences between the choices. If channel 1 is
showing "The Omega Man", channel 2 is showing some Julia Child
show, and channel 3 is showing the local news, those choices will
present very wide satisfaction differences [and this is important]
even to people of widely different tastes. I'd watch channel 1 and
think I was experiencing a big difference in satisfaction than if I
had to watch channel 2; but my wife would watch channel 2 and feel
equally "fortunate".
But if there are 1000 channels, or if we go beyond that into a
situation where ALL programming is theoretically simultaneously
available, the difference between all of the available choices will
go way, way down. And instead of the difference between channel 1
and channel 2 being "Wow, big difference, I better watch channel
1!" the difference shrinks to the point of "meh".
So I guess I'm going all Einstein on the concept of choice and
saying that in some situations, the satisfaction of making a
particular choice is partially dependent on the relative value of
that choice compared to the second best option. Not in all cases,
because you could easily come up with examples where this isn't
true. But in some cases.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245