TED Talk: Freedom --> Too Much Choice --> Decreased Satisfaction

[STer]

 

I'm quite annoyed after watching the talk just now. No where does he present any statistical data, only anectotes, which makes it hard to take anything of value out of it.

Also he seems to simplify the act of choosing to only the number of choices available.

For a satisfying choice one needs, options, knowledge about the options (and the expected outcome) and knowledge of one's own preferences.

Only focusing on the number of options and ignoring the rest seems like it doesn't do the topic justice. And certainly is no prescription for happiness.

 

TED talks are very time-limited. His talk is based on a book which goes into a lot more depth and talks about the research on which it's based.

Are you saying you can choose choices that are not available?

I think we can all agree that there is only so much a human being can handle. Having to know about more than a certain number of options, the expected outcome of more than a certain number of options and one's preferences on more than a certain number of options can become overload. I think that's a truism. The only question is what is the number at which most people become overloaded. Surely you don't believe people can handle all of this regarding infinite options. So there has to be some point at which there are diminished returns.

[STer]

 

... The irony of your continued attempts to put forth the "choice of not having all that choice" (ie: staying in the fishbowl or choosing to let the doctor decide)... If nothing else, Schwartz's work should be very valuable to you because it offers a good example of why many people, even if not yourself, prefer less freedom.

Delegating decision-making is not giving up fredom. When I tell a taxi-driver to take me downtown, I'm not losing any freedom if I let the driver choose the route, because I can withdraw this delegation at any time by asking the driver to take a specific turn.

I don't see this as ironic at all. It's one of the many techniques humans use to get the benefit of choices without the choice becoming burdensome. Here are some of those techniques:

1. Delegating some decisions to a person whose knowledge you respect (for example, asking a doctor what he/she would do in the same circumstances).

2. Delegating some decisions to a person who may not have specific knowledge but whose overall wisdom you respect (for example, asking an older family member what they would suggest)

3. Relying on reputation (for example, when buying a new product you could choose a brand name that has served you well in the past with other products)

4. Not sweating the small stuff (don't anguish over decisions that make little difference, save the decision-making for the things that really matter)

5. Making a choice that eliminates the need to make other choices. For example, some people choose a package holiday where flights, hotels and perhaps car rental or excursions are all bundled together.

These are all legitimate ways for people to maximise the benefits of choice while reducing the burden.

 

Well the title of Schwartz's talk is "The Paradox of Choice." And this is just another form of paradox. You can frame it as giving away some of your freedom (the choice to outsource your choice) or not (but hey it's still MY choice) depending on how you look at it. So I'm not saying you're wrong here, but I don't think I am either on this point. It's kind of a wash.

But that's not really the most important issue here. The really important issue here is that, despite having these options, regardless of which route they take to get the decision made by themselves or through delegating, people apparently are less satisfied in the long run because there are so many more choices that were not chosen and - and this probably happens unconsciously as much as consciously - they can't help wondering whether they could have made a better choice.

Of course, the research and evidence need to be relied on to see if this is actually the case. But I see no reason on the surface to doubt this could well be the case. We evolved for an environment with far less choice. So it would make plenty of sense that, in that setting, it was adaptive to always worry if another option might be better because it wasn't that exhausting to test it out. That same mechanism now would simply drive a person to overload because the environment has changed but that mechanism may not have.

It's worth noting that nobody is saying this is true of everyone. In fact, Schwartz and others have talked about the difference between maximizers and satisficers. Maximizers are the ones who constantly worry if they've gotten the very best. Satisficers just go wtih good enough and are content wtih that. It seems there are both of these groups in human societies. So we have to be aware of that.

[TheRobin]

I understand that theses talks are time-limited, but he had the time to put up 10+ comics/annecdotes, so I'm sure he could just as well have put up some acutal studies instead, which would make for far better discussion of the topic, as now it's mere opinions and best guesses for everyone.And the whole point of distributing labour is that one doesn't need to know all the things about every option presented, but can ask the person who presents wyou with these options (or should be able to ask them at least).Giving a person responsibility (choice) without power (knowledge) is just torture to some degree.If I'm a salesman and I offer 100 brands of TV's I better be able to explain what the advantages and disadvantages are and have some knowledge which one is best suited for which purpose. If I can't do that, then it's more a problem of me being a shitty salesman than having 100 TV's to choose from.And I don't see a problem with theoretical "infinte" options tbh, if you have criteria for what you want and not want, and someone who has the knowledge to filter out all that you don't want. It's more a problem if there's no expert around and the choice adds a huge chunk of time to the process of choosing, because then it's quite some work to get the knowledge about the options, which is not what one wants to actually do most of the time.

[STer]

 

I understand that theses talks are time-limited, but he had the time to put up 10+ comics/annecdotes, so I'm sure he could just as well have put up some acutal studies instead, which would make for far better discussion of the topic, as now it's mere opinions and best guesses for everyone.

And the whole point of distributing labour is that one doesn't need to know all the things about every option presented, but can ask the person who presents wyou with these options (or should be able to ask them at least).

Giving a person responsibility (choice) without power (knowledge) is just torture to some degree.
If I'm a salesman and I offer 100 brands of TV's I better be able to explain what the advantages and disadvantages are and have some knowledge which one is best suited for which purpose. If I can't do that, then it's more a problem of me being a shitty salesman than having 100 TV's to choose from.

And I don't see a problem with theoretical "infinte" options tbh, if you have criteria for what you want and not want, and someone who has the knowledge to filter out all that you don't want. It's more a problem if there's no expert around and the choice adds a huge chunk of time to the process of choosing, because then it's quite some work to get the knowledge about the options, which is not what one wants to actually do most of the time.

 

He obviously made a conscious decision that it was more important to discuss the studies' results along with making the talk entertaining than to give the in-depth numbers here when anyone can read his book for those. It's interesting because I just finished a book by a really successful pitchman where he basically bends over backwards to implore people to do anything they can to avoid getting into the nitty gritty numbers in a short presentation since this loses the audience's attention and they can get those later once they're more interested. So by that logic, Schwartz did the right thing here if his goal is to get more people interested to investigate further.

As I keep pointing out, it isn't as much the stress of making the decision itself, though that can be frustrating. It's the existence of so many untried alternatives - far more than it's reasonable to try - which reduces the confidence that you made the best possible choice compared to the confidence people used to have when there were less possible choices. That's the paradox and it comes from the fact that many people's satisfaction is based on relative comparisons, not absolute status. And like I said I've seen other studies on that topic before, as you probably have.

[ribuck]

And I don't see a problem with theoretical "infinte" options

Infinite options are great because you don't need to select between alternatives. You just articulate what you want, and one of the infinite options will already match that.

Humans choose from "infinite" options all the time. If I have nothing planned for a Sunday, I think "What shall I do today?". An infinite number of choices is available to me, yet I have no trouble thinking "It's a nice sunny day, so I'll go to the beach", or "I haven't mown the lawn for a while, so I'll do that today".

 

[STer]

 

And I don't see a problem with theoretical "infinte" options

Infinite options are great because you don't need to select between alternatives. You just articulate what you want, and one of the infinite options will already match that.

Humans choose from "infinite" options all the time. If I have nothing planned for a Sunday, I think "What shall I do today?". An infinite number of choices is available to me, yet I have no trouble thinking "It's a nice sunny day, so I'll go to the beach", or "I haven't mown the lawn for a while, so I'll do that today".

 

 

But what you keep leaving out is that the people referred to as maximizers, when they do this, feel conflicted between multiple choices. You can think of this in terms of the MEcosystem if you want. Different parts want different things. People are not of one mind. And then when the choice is finally made, they have infinite other possibilities to wonder if they would have been better.

It really doesn't mean much if you yourself happen to be a satisficer who makes your choice and lives happily with it. The problem is a significant proportion of people are not satisficers.

[Flake]

You might want to check out the Wikipedia entry on the guy's book. The studies he bases it on are questionable.

On a side note I'll agree that some people really don't like having to make choices. Just because those people don't want so many choices doesn't mean that everyone should have their choices restricted. Some people enjoy having plenty of options, to those people restricting their choices would lower their satisfaction, and this is the point Libertarians / AnCaps are trying to hammer home. What's good for some isn't good for all.

[ribuck]

But what you keep leaving out is that the people referred to as maximizers, when they do this, feel conflicted between multiple choices.

I can identify with that. If I buy a new camera, or book a hotel, or replace my car, I spend ages looking into the available choices. When I make my decision, I feel great anxiety as to whether I've made the right decision.

But I'm still going to feel that anxiety, even if my choices are reduced right down to two. That anxiety would only go away if I have only one possibility, and no decision to make. But that situation, having no choice and therefore no chance to improve my situation, would be worse than having to experience choice-anxiety.

On the other hand, if there are so many choices that I don't need to go through them one by one, I can just articulate my requirements and see which ones match. I know that the matches are "all good" and can just arbitrarily choose one. That's when I experience no choice-anxiety.

[STer]

 

You might want to check out the Wikipedia entry on the guy's book. The studies he bases it on are questionable.

On a side note I'll agree that some people really don't like having to make choices. Just because those people don't want so many choices doesn't mean that everyone should have their choices restricted. Some people enjoy having plenty of options, to those people restricting their choices would lower their satisfaction, and this is the point Libertarians / AnCaps are trying to hammer home. What's good for some isn't good for all.

 

I saw that section on Wikipedia. But it doesn't refute all the other researchers' work that Schwartz references. Especially, for example, the maximizer/satisficer work. And the other research out there on the principle of people's satisfaction being based on relative comparison to others, not absolute status. Those studies are well known in their own right.

I think your second paragraph hits on why this raises so many difficulties. Libertarian/AnCaps seem to be the type of people who enjoy maximal freedom and choice, perhaps because they are satisficers who are able to enjoy those choices despite the massive array of alternative options. That's fine. But I very often see them going to the lengths of painting that desire for maximal freedom as representative of health and that anyone who doesn't enjoy that much freedom has a "slave mentality" that must derive from abuse of some sort. Quite possibly, though, this maximizer/satisficer divide is just a perfectly healthy aspect of human diversity. If this is the case, then it raises questions of how maximizers and satisficers can possibly coexist optimally. It would no longer make sense for satisficers, who are comfortable with maximum choice, as they often do, to paint maximizers who struggle with this and therefore prefer being part of more collective decision-making in more limited structural environments as simply misguided people who haven't yet woken up.

Now it would be easy to just say ok, let the satisficers have their world of maximal choice and the maximizers can limit themselves as they need and just live side by side. But in practice it is very difficult for these worlds not to impinge on each other. It's also easy for the satisficers to just say "Oh well, too bad. You have no right to limit my choices just because it makes things more difficult for you." But even if the maximizers say "Ok in theory that's true" you still have the challenge of living in a society with a lot of very stressed and unhappy people, which inevitably has consequences.

So it might be interesting to turn this discussion toward the question of how satisficers and maximizers can optimally coexist. I think it's a challenging question.

[STer]

 

But what you keep leaving out is that the people referred to as maximizers, when they do this, feel conflicted between multiple choices.

I can identify with that. If I buy a new camera, or book a hotel, or replace my car, I spend ages looking into the available choices. When I make my decision, I feel great anxiety as to whether I've made the right decision.

But I'm still going to feel that anxiety, even if my choices are reduced right down to two. That anxiety would only go away if I have only one possibility, and no decision to make. But that situation, having no choice and therefore no chance to improve my situation, would be worse than having to experience choice-anxiety.

On the other hand, if there are so many choices that I don't need to go through them one by one, I can just articulate my requirements and see which ones match. I know that the matches are "all good" and can just arbitrarily choose one. That's when I experience no choice-anxiety.

 

Well according to Schwartz having only one choice also causes anxiety. Too few choices is not great either. If there are only a few choices, you can pretty reasonably try them all so there isn't need for quite as much anxiety. But when there are hundreds of choices, it becomes unreasonable to try them all. I think that this is why people do love matrices and things that help them, like the used car site commercial showing the people narrowing down one characteristic at a time. Or meta-sales sites that aggregate data from all the sellers out there to help find you the best deal. These are very helpful tools for maximizers for sure. So part of the answer is certainly providing tools to help manage that anxiety.

But I also know that often you can't quite verbalize what the thing is you're looking for or it isn't something that's easy to measure. I wouldn't buy jeans online because even the same pair in the same size can often feel different when you try them on. You really need to interact with certain things to choose that specific item. But Schwartz's point is that back when there were fewer choices, you wouldn't expect such a great fit in the first place. The increase in choices has led to increased expectations.

[TheRobin]

 

As I keep pointing out, it isn't as much the stress of making the decision itself, though that can be frustrating. It's the existence of so many untried alternatives - far more than it's reasonable to try - which reduces the confidence that you made the best possible choice compared to the confidence people used to have when there were less possible choices. That's the paradox and it comes from the fact that many people's satisfaction is based on relative comparisons, not absolute status. And like I said I've seen other studies on that topic before, as you probably have.

 

But isn't the problem of untreid choices also a part of the problem of having no knowledge?
I mean, I don't feel anxious about never having used a fork to write on paper, because I know it would be unsatisfying. So the only way that untried alternatives would cause anxiety that makes sense to me, is, when people can project a better result onto them, which is usually just a lack of knowledge about the actual facts of that option.

And btw, no, I haven't seen or read any sutdies on the topic, just that talk you linked, which is why I found it very unsatisfying to not see the studies and methods he used to arrive at those conclusions.

[STer]

 

 

As I keep pointing out, it isn't as much the stress of making the decision itself, though that can be frustrating. It's the existence of so many untried alternatives - far more than it's reasonable to try - which reduces the confidence that you made the best possible choice compared to the confidence people used to have when there were less possible choices. That's the paradox and it comes from the fact that many people's satisfaction is based on relative comparisons, not absolute status. And like I said I've seen other studies on that topic before, as you probably have.

 

But isn't the problem of untreid choices also a part of the problem of having no knowledge?
I mean, I don't feel anxious about never having used a fork to write on paper, because I know it would be unsatisfying. So the only way that untried alternatives would cause anxiety that makes sense to me, is, when people can project a better result onto them, which is usually just a lack of knowledge about the actual facts of that option.

And btw, no, I haven't seen or read any sutdies on the topic, just that talk you linked, which is why I found it very unsatisfying to not see the studies and methods he used to arrive at those conclusions.

 

I think it's utopian to believe that with 100 salad dressings, for example, it's reasonable to expect people to gain enough knowledge to really be certain they have the best one in the way they could when there were 3 salad dressings at their grocery store. It seems to me just a fact of having a multitude of choices that people simply can't possibly get all the knowledge they'd need in most areas to really be confident. As was pointed out, that's why we end up having to rely on others a lot for guidance. But when we do that, we still will often harbor doubt unless we know a very trusted person on that subject.

Well just as a little point in the right direction, here is the page on Satisficing which can lead you to some of Herbert Simon's ideas on it.

And here is an article talking about the relative wealth issue, which I have seen brought up in many articles over the years pointing to different studies.

[MrCapitalism]

What if you don't like the 3 salad dressings offered?

[STer]

 

What if you don't like the 3 salad dressings offered?

 

That issue was dealt with at just about the very beginning of the talk where he mentioned that the few pairs of jeans available never fit anyone right. But because of that they just had low expectations so they simply coped with it and didn't lose much sleep. I think we've all experienced this time and again where you never knew you were missing something until it became available. I don't remember people being bothered at all at not having a cell phone growing up. Now people are terribly bothered if they can't make a call instantly from anywhere.

[TheRobin]

I find it hard to belive that there even ARE 100 different salad dressing (Or if there are, that thre is a huge difference between each of them).But to use that as an example, I fail to see how that would be a problem in terms of knowledge, sure you don't know the contents of each and every one of them, but you (hopefully) know, what ingredients you're looking for, so you just check a few bottles for that, and then take one of them. (I also have a hard time understanding that there even could be that much of a relevant difference). I mean, if the difference comes down to 100 shades of gray and not to red, blue, green. And calling those 100 different shades a relevant choice seems a bit inaccurate when it makes little difference from a practical level.To me this whole discomfort seems to stem more from an idea of "perfect outcome" that can never be achieved anyway. Which makes it less a problem of choice and more a problem of either unquestioned beliefs or inflicted trauma.So I don't see how making a causality out of the correlation of choice and discomfort is appropriate in any way.

[STer]

 

I find it hard to belive that there even ARE 100 different salad dressing (Or if there are, that thre is a huge difference between each of them).

But to use that as an example, I fail to see how that would be a problem in terms of knowledge, sure you don't know the contents of each and every one of them, but you (hopefully) know, what ingredients you're looking for, so you just check a few bottles for that, and then take one of them. (I also have a hard time understanding that there even could be that much of a relevant difference). I mean, if the difference comes down to 100 shades of gray and not to red, blue, green. And calling those 100 different shades a relevant choice seems a bit inaccurate when it makes little difference from a practical level.

To me this whole discomfort seems to stem more from an idea of "perfect outcome" that can never be achieved anyway. Which makes it less a problem of choice and more a problem of either unquestioned beliefs or inflicted trauma.
So I don't see how making a causality out of the correlation of choice and discomfort is appropriate in any way.

 

This is the very difference between empiricism and non-empiricism. Here you are giving these purely speculative logical reasons why something shouldn't be a certain way. But someone else has done research showing it is that way.

If you are empirical, you have to either find a specific flaw in their research (ie: their sample size was too small or they failed to test this criterion in a valid way or something to actually do with critiquing the research) or do your own research refuting theirs. If the response to research is just to go "I don't think that's right cause it seems wrong to me" then we may as well not even waste our time with science.

Beyond that, the salad dressing example is obviously a tiny token example. The level of discomfort over that one thing alone would probably be unnoticeable. But when you apply the same principle over and over to nearly everything we do or acquire, it adds up to a life full of doubt over whether you are where you should be for a lot of people.

I've actually wondered before what role this has played in skyrocketing divorce rates. 100 years ago, you basically met a limited handful of eligible mates in your life. So there weren't that many other options to sit there wondering if they'd have been better. Now you have access to mates all over the world to the point where you can never possibly know even a fraction of the available mates and can always wonder if someone better is out there. This also may tie into why it's been found that arranged marriages are no less happy or successful than chosen marriages. In those cultures that use arranged marriages, the choices are limited so the couple doesn't really feel like there were infinite other options to worry about and they just get about making the best of things.

[David L]

Just a comment here: 

Giving a choice can be a deliberate strategy to get you to assume you are free. I believe that's why the Universal Grocery Checkout began a decade or so ago imposing a choice upon you without first asking the obvious question of whether it even mattered to you or not:  "Paper or Plastic"?

They are trying to unconsciously pound into you on a very regular basis the illusion that you are free, forcing you to make this superficial "choice", while they are actually taking away truly meaningful freedoms every day. It's a deliberate conditioning agenda based upon the technique of reinforced hypnotic suggestion. "Republican or Democrat"?

A person who believes he's free won't rebel against the fact that he is not.

 

[TheRobin]

since you seem to actually have access to his research (which we all don't), why don't you tell us how he came up with his finding that choice causes anxiety instead of calling me non-empirical?Finding a correlation and claim causality is obviously non-empirical as well, so outside of that, what are his findings?

[TheRobin]

http://edoc.hu-berlin.de/dissertationen/scheibehenne-benjamin-2008-01-21/HTML/

"This dissertation explores the so-called too-much-choice effect, according to which an overabundance of options eventually leads to negative consequences, such as a diminished motivation to choose any option or a decreased satisfaction with the finally chosen alternative. While strong instances of this effect have been found in a small number of studies in the past, its theoretical underpinnings are still somewhat unspecific. Because the effect challenges basic axioms of rational choice theory and it also has important implications for applied fields such as marketing and public policy making, it is important to get a better understanding of the mechanisms that lead to the effect. As a starting point to test these mechanisms, an experimental paradigm is needed in which the effect reliably occurs. Therefore, I first strived to replicate previous experiments that reported large effect sizes. Yet in a series of three replications in the field and in the lab with a total of 850 participants, I did not find an effect of too much choice, suggesting that the effect is less robust than previously thought and that it depends on certain boundary conditions instead. To find out why the effect occurs and which specific conditions are necessary to reliably elicit it, I subsequently examined several boundary conditions that figure in previous research on decision making in psychology and related fields and then tested the conditions empirically in a series of six laboratory experiments. Based on the results of these experiments with a total of 595 participants, most of the tested boundary conditions could be ruled out as explanations of why and when the effect of too much choice occurs. The results of a meta-analysis of published and unpublished data including my own suggest that the effect of too much choice is smaller than previously thought and that the differences between the studies that found the effect and those that did not cannot be explained by mere chance. As a consequence, a further search for moderator variables in future research seems justified."

 

 

 

[STer]

 

Just a comment here: 

Giving a choice can be a deliberate strategy to get you to assume you are free. I believe that's why the Universal Grocery Checkout began a decade or so ago imposing a choice upon you without first asking the obvious question of whether it even mattered to you or not:  "Paper or Plastic"?

They are trying to unconsciously pound into you on a very regular basis the illusion that you are free, forcing you to make this superficial "choice", while they are actually taking away truly meaningful freedoms every day. It's a deliberate conditioning agenda based upon the technique of reinforced hypnotic suggestion. "Republican or Democrat"?

A person who believes he's free won't rebel against the fact that he is not.

 

 

Can you give any evidence that this is a conscious plot where this tactic is being used this way and not just an emergent property? Who precisely has implemented the plan and what can you point to to show this intent?

[Guest darkskyabove]

@STer: You show far more restraint than I tend to muster.

"Paper or Plastic" is now a plot to enslave me with the illusion of choice. Really?

Good thing I bring my own re-usable bags to the store. Wouldn't want to become a "check-out" slave.

[STer]

 

since you seem to actually have access to his research (which we all don't), why don't you tell us how he came up with his finding that choice causes anxiety instead of calling me non-empirical?

Finding a correlation and claim causality is obviously non-empirical as well, so outside of that, what are his findings?

 

I don't have access to the research any more than you do. I've just looked at resources about the book online which talk about which studies he cites. Beyond that I was hoping to hear from people who are familiar with it on that level.

But your non-empiricism is not dependent on me in any way. It's evident in the fact that you keep trying to refute something based on research with an approach like "Well that just doesn't seem to make sense to me." A lot of things "just don't seem to make sense" based on our everyday experience and yet have been confirmed through research. Heck all you have to do is look at optical illusions to see that scientific measurements can show us things that we wouldn't ever have intuitively thought were the case.

I don't understand why people keep bringing up that correlation doesn't equal causality as if that applies here. That's basic science 101. I'm not sure where you're seeing any evidence that Schwartz doesn't realize this or that the other researchers whose work he is citing don't. I'm not saying it's impossible since I haven't gotten to delve too deeply into it. But it's complete speculation on your part that anyone is simply equating correlation to causality without further backing. I agree we'd have to make sure that wasn't done. But I wouldn't lean toward expecting that to be the case. That would be a pretty rookie mistake for anyone in research to make and I can't imagine any reputable journal publishing a study that amateurish. There are a lot of flaws in research that don't get picked up on in different cases. But equating correlation and causality would be like a math teacher saying 1+1=3 it would be so basic. Obviously if it was done it would refute the whole study we can agree. But I think the odds are pretty low that, whatever flaws there may be in the work, that he would be foolish enough to allow that one.

I'd be pretty shocked if he doesn't say in his work "Of course, there are these alternative explanations for why increased choice and dissatisfaction are linked. other than a causal link. But those alternatives are refuted by X, Y, Z." I mean this is a work by a trained professor, not a self-help guru.

It's also worth pointing out that Schwartz never says increased choice is the only cause of dissatisfaction. He says it contributes. He never goes so far as to claim "this is the reason for dissatisfaction." I've seen a lot of exaggeration of his claims in this thread.

[STer]

 

http://edoc.hu-berlin.de/dissertationen/scheibehenne-benjamin-2008-01-21/HTML/

"This dissertation explores the so-called
too-much-choice effect, according to which an overabundance of options
eventually leads to negative consequences, such as a diminished
motivation to choose any option or a decreased satisfaction with the
finally chosen alternative. While strong instances of this effect have
been found in a small number of studies in the past, its theoretical
underpinnings are still somewhat unspecific. Because the effect
challenges basic axioms of rational choice theory and it also has
important implications for applied fields such as marketing and public
policy making, it is important to get a better understanding of the
mechanisms that lead to the effect. As a starting point to test these
mechanisms, an experimental paradigm is needed in which the effect
reliably occurs. Therefore, I first strived to replicate previous
experiments that reported large effect sizes. Yet in a series of three
replications in the field and in the lab with a total of 850
participants, I did not find an effect of too much choice, suggesting
that the effect is less robust than previously thought and that it
depends on certain boundary conditions instead. To find out why the
effect occurs and which specific conditions are necessary to reliably
elicit it, I subsequently examined several boundary conditions that
figure in previous research on decision making in psychology and related
fields and then tested the conditions empirically in a series of six
laboratory experiments. Based on the results of these experiments with a
total of 595 participants, most of the tested boundary conditions could
be ruled out as explanations of why and when the effect of too much
choice occurs. The results of a meta-analysis of published and
unpublished data including my own suggest that the effect of too much
choice is smaller than previously thought and that the differences
between the studies that found the effect and those that did not cannot
be explained by mere chance. As a consequence, a further search for
moderator variables in future research seems justified."

 

 

 

 

 

Yes that's the one linked on the Wikipedia page for Schwartz's book which we were discussing earlier in the thread. I agree we need more studies to see if we can further pinpoint what is going on with the effect. It sounds like this study was unable to zero in on it. Did you find any who took this researchers' advice and did a "further search for moderator variables"?

Like I pointed out earlier, this meta-analysis does not address the validity of Simon's work or the work on the overall principle that people's satisfaction is based on their perception of relative status, rather than their absolute status. Those principles still appear to be important here. As for Schwartz's work specifically, the meta-analysis simply says the effect is there, but smaller and more focused than Schwartz said.

It's also worth noting that Schwartz says one thing and this other researcher says another. There's no reason to instantly think the meta-analysis is accurate and Schwartz isn't. I really think more research is needed to figure out whose work is more solid. I guess we just don't know at this point. But some of the main principles Schwartz cites are older and more established ideas that I have not seen refuted and in fact have seen corroborated.

[STer]

 

@STer: You show far more restraint than I tend to muster.

"Paper or Plastic" is now a plot to enslave me with the illusion of choice. Really?

Good thing I bring my own re-usable bags to the store. Wouldn't want to become a "check-out" slave.

 

LOL

[David L]

Good thing I bring my own re-usable bags to the store. Wouldn't want to become a "check-out" slave.

Chuckles. I'm guessing you don't throw your garbage out without using a bag. Which means, instead of using the bags they offer at the check-out, you purchase them instead. If so, good for you! They're applauding your conservative, ethical, and financial intelligence. :-)

[Metric]

On some level, this is interesting and counter-intuitive.

On another level, we've all known it for a very long time -- huge numbers of people can't wait to get into that voting booth to flush their liberty and opportunity away (along with everyone else's).