Decision Tips
More choices increase the chances for regret.
Who the heck needs 31 flavors of ice cream?
—S. Robbins
Consider the following study conducted at an upscale California grocery store.1 Over the course of two 5-hour periods, consumers were offered samples of exotic jams. One display had 24 flavors from which to sample; the other only 6. Customers were allowed to taste as many jams as they wanted. The study was meant to see how many flavors customers would sample, whether the number of samples would influence future purchases of the jams, and how satisfied the customers were who later purchased one or more of the jams.
Here’s what the study found. First, the average person who stopped by the displays—both the one with 24 varieties and the one with 6—sampled fewer than two of the jam varieties. Second, while 3 percent of those offered the extensive choice (24) subsequently purchased a jar of jam, 30 percent of the consumers faced with the limited choice (6) subsequently bought a jar. Finally, a follow-up with both groups of purchasers found that those with fewer options expressed greater satisfaction with the choices they made.
This chapter provides an extension of our previous chapter. Not only is more information not necessarily better because of information overload, but as the jam experiment demonstrated, the evidence indicates that you can increase your happiness by actually limiting your decision options. That is, less may be more.
We live in a society and culture that values the abundance of options. We value the freedom to choose. Free choice, in fact, is one of the basic elements of a market-based, capitalistic system. As a result, we tend to think that more is better. We think we’ll be happier if we can choose between 15 types of mustards on the grocery shelf, a large array of potential dating partners, and umpteen varieties of investment options. But as we learned in the previous chapter, our ability to assimilate and hold information is limited. Hence we have what one author describes as “the paradox of choice.”2 The fact that some choice is good doesn’t necessarily mean that more choice is better.
The fact that some choice is good doesn’t necessarily mean that more choice is better.
Historical studies that found that more options increase satisfaction were typically arrived at by comparing one item versus two or two items versus five. When dealing with small numbers, more is typically better. And choice among a relatively limited number of options is certainly better than no choice at all. But are 20 options better than 3 or 4? Here the answer seems to be no.
A number of studies have confirmed that more decision options can actually reduce satisfaction.3 But why is this? Three reasons have been suggested.4 First, more options means we need more information to assess our choices. It’s a lot easier to get information on 4 choices than 24. So more choices mean more work. Second, as options expand, we tend to raise our expectations for what is an acceptable outcome. When choosing among 31 flavors of ice cream, we expect to find a more perfect choice than if we have to choose between only chocolate and vanilla. And third, as options expand we tend to believe it’s our fault if the result is unacceptable. How could we not be happy when we had so many options to choose from?
These findings can help us better understand the high success rate for arranged marriages or why celebrities and the super-rich seem to have so much difficulty maintaining relationships. The answer is: options. If you live in a culture where your spouse is chosen for you when you’re an infant, you accept the single choice and don’t complicate your life by looking for someone “better.” On the other hand, when you’re constantly bombarded by attractive potential mates, you’re likely to think that you can always do better.
Interestingly, more options don’t appear to reduce satisfaction for everyone. Remember our discussion of maximizers and satisficers in Chapter 6, “Are You a Maximizer or Satisficer?” The evidence indicates that maximizers suffer more from a large number of options than do satisficers.5 That’s because maximizers, in their effort to find the optimum choice, look at more options. Then, almost regardless of the outcome, they are likely to look back and regret not choosing one of their other options. Given the reality that the maximizer is never likely to be able to examine all alternatives, there will always be the lingering thought that a better choice was available but was overlooked. In contrast, the satisficer never seeks to find an optimum choice. He is content with a choice that is good enough. The result is that satisficers have less reason to experience regret over the choices they made or ruminate over better options that they missed.
For most of us, we can increase our happiness by limiting the number of alternatives we look at when making a decision. Since more isn’t necessarily better, we should look to keep our options to a half-dozen or fewer in most cases. By doing so, we’re less likely to regret the choices we didn’t make. In addition, consider reducing your expectations. Try to be a satisficer rather than a maximizer. When you set the bar too high for a decision outcome, you are more likely to feel the need to look at more options and do more analysis. This extended effort, in turn, increases the likelihood for disappointment. Less is more, both in terms of options and expectations.
Limiting options can increase happiness.
Lowering expectations can also increase happiness.