The Paradox of Choice
Now consider this. The
average grocery store offers some 300 varieties of salad dressings. Are you
sure that the one you had today, or yesterday, or last week, was indeed the
best? How do you know? Have you tried all the 300?
Or assume you want to build a
stereo system that will provide you with endless hours of bliss. A well-stocked
electronic components store can, in theory,
allow you to build seven million varieties of stereo systems. How would you
determine that the components that you choose would indeed provide the best
possible sound?
Choice is a
fascinating subject to explore. In his book, The Paradox of Choice, Barry Schwartz argued that more choices lead
to more stress and thus are less helpful in making decisions. His work builds on the pioneering research of Columbia
Business School Professor Sheena Iyengar, who has consistently questioned the
notion that more choices make better decisions and suggests that on many
occasions, fewer choices make better decisions. As you would expect, mainstream
economists term this “hogwash.” People who welcome new ways of thinking based
on well-established research principles acknowledge that choice has limits. The
essence of the paradox of choice is that more options lead to fewer actions.
Fewer options lead to more actions.
A profound but painful finding
of Professor Iyengar’s research relates to choices that parents must make when
faced with the challenge of when and if to remove a prematurely born baby from
life support. Just imagine the trauma involved with the decision. Without life
support, the baby will die in a matter of hours. With life support, the baby
will survive but in a vegetative state. In some countries, such as France, the
decision is made by the doctor. In the U.S., the decision must be made by the
parents. Research suggests that the negative emotions, frustration, and a sense
of guilt persist in American parents even a year after the event. In France,
parents appear to come to terms with reality sooner and get on with life.
Therefore, the inevitable question that arises is whether the availability of
“choice” makes American parents better off or worse off in such a daunting
situation.
Research also suggests that
the very notion of choice is context-specific. On a lighter note, a Japanese
waiter refuses to provide sugar with green tea because,
in Japan, you do not drink green tea with sugar. When the matter escalates to the manager, the latter politely
says that they do not have sugar. Change the order to coffee, magic happens. You
get the coffee along with two packets of sugar!.
Similarly, for the citizens
of the East European countries transitioning from socialism to a free-market
economy, seven different beverages offered do not represent choice. For them,
all the seven are “soda.” Offer them the beverages, along with a variety of
fruit juices, and water, and then they perceive the offering as three choices –
soda, fruit juice, and water. When experts cannot distinguish between beverages
that are close substitutes in a blind test, why do companies keep offering more
and more choices?
The plethora of choices
available in health insurance can confound even the most rational person. How
are ordinary people supposed to make decisions from a complex set of choices
with so much fine print that one can make neither head nor tail out of any of them?
An unintended consequence of
a proliferation of choice is visible in match-making sites. One particular site
boasts of over a million profiles. It is quite hilarious. Every male seeks a
beautiful, tall, slim, well-educated, preferably employed female from a
“respectable” family. Every female has similar requirements with some words
getting substituted – for example, the prospective young man better is employed in an
MNC, and located in the western hemisphere. Nobody is really good enough, and
one is always worried that one might be missing out on something. In fact,
social media has a new term for this” “FOMO” – Fear of Missing Out.
Or consider
democracy as a process. The Indian state of Uttar Pradesh has elections for the
state legislature scheduled in February 2017. Please remember that if the state
were to be an independent entity, it would be the 7th largest
country in the world. Many constituencies have as many as 45 candidates in the
fray. Does this choice lead to better decision-making on the part of voters?
(More than half the electorate are illiterate; I do not link intelligence and
literacy; However, one would be stretching the limits of logic by insisting
that people having no knowledge of the candidates or their antecedents and vote
based on a visual symbol will make the wisest choice).
When one
looks at all the evidence for and against choice, one is still none the wiser
for it. As one scholar writes, “offering lots of extra choices seems to make no
important difference either way.” The argument of many economists is this: “If
the too-much-choice effect were true, producers and marketers would be
simplifying the decision process for consumers by limiting the number of
choices. A visit to any store reveals a proliferation of choices, not a
reduction. Therefore the effect can’t be true.”
We can find
examples in the real world where reducing choice has led to increased sales in
a variety of industries. The interesting point to note is that practically in
every case, the reduction of choice was made as a cost cutting measure, not a vehicle for
generating more sales.
Professor
Iyengar’s work suggests that when employees have many alternatives to
retirement plans, fewer employees participate. When only a few options are
available, more employees take advantage. A similar phenomenon is visible in
health care. By passing up on the opportunity, employees lose the matching
employer’s contribution. How does one explain this paradox?
For
economists, the concept of choice overload is logically impossible. For
ordinary people, choice overload is a reality. You have over 200 TV channels.
That is an abundance of choice. Are you sure you are watching the most relevant
or the most interesting or the most inspiring program?
Choice has
its uses but only up to a point. Beyond that, more choice may lead to a
decision paralysis. A real challenge for all of us is to find that middle
ground – the so-called “sweet spot.” The middle ground is one in which we can
make better and wiser decisions. Psychology has many phenomena where one can
indeed have too much of a good thing. That is true of choice as well.
How to find
that sweet spot? Your guess is as good as mine.
Every parent who is helping a toddler to get dressed in the morning knows that fewer choices cause less stress. (for both parties) Somehow we do not relate this known fact to ourselves as adults or to that same toddler as they grow up. The guilt and negative impact that follows the individual(s) that are in the position and required to make the "decision" to discontinue life support for a family member - young or old - lasts a lifetime. Too much of anything is never a good thing. This article made me think of my routine and how upsetting it is when I have to make a choice when a favorite product is discontinued.. Thank you!
ReplyDelete