The Paradox of Choice

Two researchers named Iyengar and Lepper conducted an experiment in a grocery store. They set up tasting stations in two locations and on different days. At one station, customers could sample from a selection of 24 different jams. At the other, just six.

So, what happened?

The 24 Jam Station consistently attracted the most interest. And why not? How often do you get to stick a spoon in that many different flavors? Come to think of it, who can even name that many kinds of jam?

But, and this is interesting, only 3% bought anything.

Over at the Six Jam Station, things turned out much differently. While less popular, a whopping 30% bought something due to the tasting.

Students of decision-making refer to this as “choice paralysis” or the “Paradox of Choice.” We think we want lots of choices, but do we? What seems more true is that we want edited and curated experiences. We want recommendations. We respond to algorithms.

Conversely, and this is the point I’m working towards, this preference for curation and reduction of choices works against us for “big” decisions. There, the tendency is to cut off or ignore possibilities because they seem unfamiliar or impossible due to cost, complexity, time, risk, distance, or whatever.

We typically give ourselves too few choices.

Where choice is your enemy when it comes to Jam or Netflix, increasing the field of possibilities is almost always the right strategy for more significant, more consequential decisions.