Choice Challenges
“Choice” is such an unquestioned good that in virtually all aspects of life, the accepted wisdom is that more choice is better. In fact, the modern array of options that require us to make choices on a daily basis is at best a mixed blessing. The proliferation of choices in a modern society such as ours goes well beyond things such as groceries or TV programs to some of our most significant personal decisions. Young, well-educated Tweedles in particular have unprecedented freedom to make whatever they want of their lives: to decide where to live, what to do, whom to “friend”, to whom (or whether) to marry—a myriad of choices!
It’s all too much, just too much, they say, and throw up their hands in despair. This type of reaction is also alluded to and documented in the latest line of research in social decision-making and choice. Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum are facing a crisis of choice. They’re increasingly unhappy, riddled with anxiety and regret, precisely because they have so much freedom to decide what to do with their money and their lives. Some choice may be good, but too much seems to be unmanageable.
There is growing evidence showing that it is hard for Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum to deal with too much choice. A number of studies suggest that while Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum are able to make sensible decisions between say, six options—it seems that options of 30 or more causes them to back off or “choose” arbitrarily.
“As the number of available choices increases, the autonomy, control and liberation this variety brings is powerful and positive,” says Barry Schwartz, author of the book, The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less. “But as the number of choices keeps growing, negative aspects of having a multitude of options begin to appear. As choices grow further, the negatives escalate until we become overloaded. At this point, choice no longer liberates, but debilitates. It might even be said to tyrannize.”
Schwartz cites studies showing that when The Tweedles are presented with fewer options, they are more likely to take one of them and feel more satisfied with their selection, as opposed to being offered a wide range of choices. Financial service companies for example, have learned through experience that offering hundreds of options makes it almost impossible for Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum to make a decision, so they whittle down the available choices to about half a dozen “recommended” products.
It seems odd to suggest in a market society such as ours that fewer choices might be better suited to making “smart” choices. In reality though, Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum do not have the time, energy or intelligence to weigh the pros and cons of an ocean of possibilities before coming to a conclusion. In fact, trying to do so will put them on a direct route to misery. Additional studies in this area have shown that people, possibly someone like Tweedle Dee, who are “satisficers”, (those who can accept a “good enough” option), are much happier than people like Tweedle Dum, a “maximizer”, who scours the pages of magazines, websites and other information sources in search of the ideal product.
Lifestyle Choices
Many times choice has an unwanted consequence for Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee: regret. For example, If Tweedle Dee chooses Paris over Milan or Florence as a vacation destination, it follows then that Tweedle Dee must give up what good things the other locations have to offer. This kind of choice is what economists refer to as an “opportunity cost”. Another example could be a situation where the choices are unlimited—say a weekend in any city in the world: the chances of feeling another choice might have been better than the one finally chosen increase significantly. To paraphrase a well-known saying, the more grass Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum have to choose from, the greater the likelihood is that some of it will look greener.
Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum’s lifestyles choices pose the same dilemma as the vacation destination examples. Try to put yourself in Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum’s shoes and see how you would decide when looking at this group of choices: Tweedles friends include married parents, unmarried singles, a gay couple and a childless career couple. The odds are that one or more of these groups (including the Tweedles) are looking at one of the others and thinking to themselves that one or more of those groups have made a better lifestyle “choice”.
And while the Tweedles value the freedom to make their own decisions, the downside of choice is that they must take responsibility for failure as well as success. The “success of modernity turns out to be bitter-sweet, and everywhere we look, it appears that a significant contributing factor is the over-abundance of choice,” says Schwartz. “Having too many choices produces psychological distress, especially when combined with the desire to have the best of everything—to maximize.”
Schwartz suggests: “When there are many options available, the chances increase that there is a really good one out there, and you feel that you ought to be able to find it. When the option you actually settle on proves disappointing, you regret not having chosen more wisely.” After reading this quote and thinking about his “choice” of words, I then tried to find something that I could relate it to. For some reason I keep recalling the dilemma, choice and result of a decision that was made when faced with a multitude of options. It was when Indiana Jones is asked by the Templar Knight to make a “wise choice” when selecting the Grail chalice that will guarantee their escape from the Temple. Could a “normal” person possibly have made the correct “choice”?
Contrasting Choices
Traditional wisdom teaches that brands win market share by offering a wide variety of products, increasing the chance of exposure to an ever-wider variety of customers. But how happy do you think Tweedle Dee really is when trying to find a head cold remedy at a pharmacy that offers an overwhelming number of competing formulas, each only slightly different from the others on the shelf? I’ll bet the consequence of this choice alone is enough to give Tweedle Dee a headache!
The belief that “variety is good” is not always true, argues Harvard Business School professor John Gourville in “Overchoice and Assortment Type: When and Why Variety Backfires.” This research paper, co-written by professor Dilip Soman of the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management, demonstrates that sometimes offering too many choices prompts the confused Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee to put off a purchase or even to buy something from a competitor because of “less” choice.
Research presented earlier illustrated that certain types of variety can actually overwhelm Tweedle Dee, or make Tweedle Dum question their choice. Sometimes this can lead to choice deferral; Tweedle Dee and Dum simply give up, and their “choice” ends up being delaying any choice at all. Other times, it can drive the Tweedles toward another brand that offers a simpler assortment. In essence, what both Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee are saying is, “We can’t decide which product to choose from the many offered by Brand A, and so we will choose from the one or two products offered by Brand B.” Have any of you made a decision using this type of choice? I know I have.
The term “assortment type” refers to products that vary in ways such as size, speed or capacity. Do the Tweedles want more or less of this type of variation? This type of arrangement seems to make it easier for Tweedle Dee and Dum to make good choices. When Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee go shopping for Levi’s 501 jeans for example, the fact that there are a variety of combinations of length and waist sizes allows them to find the one that fits best. However, they first needed to make the choice of 501 jeans— from the many different styles and cuts offered by Levi’s and other similar brands.
This leads into the second assortment type–one that involves tradeoffs that need to be added into the decision-making process. Examples would be laptop computers that vary in configuration, with one having a CD/DVD and another having a wireless modem. Food selections in a restaurant would be another example. Choosing one of several alternatives provides you with some features, but forces you to give up others. This type of variety tends to confuse Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. Consequently, they frequently tend to make bad choices. An alternative to reducing the available choices would be to find a way to help the Tweedles navigate the variety in choices. Sometimes identifying alternatives by their use rather than their features can help the Tweedles made “good” choices. For instance, Dell sometimes identifies their desktop computers in terms of the intended user. The resulting choices are “gaming” desktops, “home office” desktops or “internet ready” desktop models. Rather than have to make individual choices about what individual features are required, Tweedle Dee and Dum only have to make a choice of the desktop unit that meets their perceived needs. Now, after going through this discussion of “choices”, do you think that the Tweedles would prefer to go back to a world with fewer options? To a world where choices are “made” for them, with no personal input? Admittedly, dealing with lots of choices can cause confusion, frustration and regret. But would you and the Tweedles really be happier, if all of those abundant choices disappeared?