The Tyranny of Choice
Politics
| September 9, 2007
| Tim
Over at Volokh, there's an interesting discussion about Barry Schwartz's The Paradox of Choice. I know an argument is making headway when I run into people out here in meatspace who are repeating it -- Paradox of Choice is such an argument at the moment.
The usual fallacious arguments are conscripted to limit consumer choice: People who are annoyed that others want to make choices when they don't (or at least think they don't)...
Coke, Classic Coke, Caffeine Free Coke, Coke with Vitamins, Vanilla Coke, Cherry Coke, Cherry Vanilla Coke, Diet Coke, Coke Zero, Diet Coke with Splenda, Caffeine Free Diet Coke, etc... And Pepsi has basically a mirror for all the same. For some things, a little less choice might be nice.
... people who can see the costs when they have to make choices, but imagine there will be no counterbalancing waste nor costs when the government steps in...
... what many behavioral economists have shown recently is that in the real world, more choices is not always a good thing. Why? People are not perfectly (are even somewhat) rational. People do not have access to all information. Transaction costs (esp. in terms of time) are high.
... and people who attempt to equate restricting abortion or marital forms with restricting choices in jeans...
It is pretty funny seeing so many people so in favor of choice.
However, in other parts of this website, we have people who argue against choice just as adamantly. Whether the issue is abortion or gay marriage or some other hot social topic, they don't seem to like choice very much, or would allow the market to function freely. Suddenly, government prohibitions are fine with them.
... and people who think that economics is a zero-sum game:
Perhaps our vast freedom of choices limits choices in other parts of the world? Doesn't that have a social, ethical or bioethical element to it? Free choice doesn't mean the choice is free.
All kinds of benefits are incorrectly attributed to the government, from time zones (which actually came from the railroad companies) to detecting tainted spinach (which resulted from organic farming, and was not caught by government inspectors).
One commenter recommends an excellent essay by Virginia Postrel, in Reason, which answers some of Schwartz's silliness...
In another study by the same researchers, also recounted by Schwartz, subjects were shown a group of Godiva chocolates and asked which chocolate they would buy for themselves, based on the name and look of each. Half chose from six chocolates and half chose from 30. (The experiment limited its subjects to people who liked chocolate but didn't regularly buy Godiva.)
Those who selected from the larger group took longer to make a decision. In a survey after the experiment, they were more likely to say there were "too many" chocolates to choose from and that choosing was frustrating and difficult. But they were also more likely to say that choosing was enjoyable--a result Schwartz omits from his book. People don't dislike choice, even overwhelming choice. They have mixed feelings about it. And in the real world, especially the real marketplace, they often have help making decisions....
For good scientific reasons, psychology experiments systematically screen out the habits and business practices that make real-life choices, especially shopping decisions, manageable. The experiments are designed to understand the mind, not the market.
Ralphs shoppers aren't overwhelmed by 724 kinds of produce because they don't experience every variety as a separate choice. The exotic fruits are grouped together, as are the potatoes and yams, the lettuce bags, and the apples. Godiva sells its chocolates in selections--nuts and caramels in one box, dark chocolates in another, truffles in another--not piece by piece. Businesses have strong incentives not just to offer options but to help customers navigate those choices.
Outside the artificial constraints of a psychology experiment, people adapt pretty effectively to proliferating choices. We go back to our favorite restaurant and order the same dish because we know we'll like it. We find a toothpaste that suits us and stick to it. We don't always choose anew.
In response to this debate -- its existence -- my questions are also primarily psychological: Why are some people so deeply bothered by other people having options? They're more than welcomed to simply select the first thing they see, or (especially online) sort by and purchase the cheapest option. Why does my freedom of selection annoy them so much? And why does Schwartz's thesis resonate so strongly with so many?
As usual, inquiring minds want to know.
I have often wondered this myself.
A slight aside first. People complaining about having to face the 'overwhelming' options always just make me think they're lazy and whiney. In my recent binge purchasing of a baby equipment inventory, I've had to evaluate a bunch of things. Rip it apart, kick the tires, learn all kinds of things. There are also a bunch of options, and a whole bunch of things to buy. However, I still had plenty of time to meet the responsibilities of my demanding job, and even my own studies.
As a disclaimer, the rest of this is midnight pondering and hypothesizing. Take with the appropriate amount of salt.
Now, as to the strange phenomenon of the proliferation of choices existing for people to face, the trivial way to explain it would be a power argument. They wish to have power over people, and express their determination on them.
However, I think it may be much more subtle than that. As humans, we tend to be rather arrogant creatures that know what's best for everyone. Diet coke is obvioulsy better for you, I mean my friend who developed diabetes did it all becaue of coke! (Nevermind that me, with functional hypoglycemia, can *really* use straight up Coke or Sprite at times.) In order for their pride to not be wounded, or have their ideas invalidated, you can't let people choose! Allowing choice would invalidate their ideas!
Perhaps it's also the "pity of the arrogant." People who think they're smart feel overwhelmed by the choice, and why should we inflict such a horrible crisis upon those less intelligent?
Also, the survey in the Godiva chocolate example is pretty contrived. When I go into a store with 3000 flavors, I have a really easy time choosing what I want. I look, see something I might like, and say, "I'll have that!" How is having to choose between chocolates at all frustrating and/or difficult?? I'd love to see how the questions are worded.
Or even look at the example of Dunkin' Donuts, where their advantage is that you do get to pick and choose between 20-30 different choices of doughnuts. Once again, it's easy. I know what I really like, and every so often I'll throw in a lark. However, I think that level of choice is what made them successful. (That and really good coffee!)
After all, it's *amazing* to have this much choice. It certainly beats the choices in some countries of "white rice with dirt for flavor" or "white rice without dirt".
Perhaps people who think that limiting peoples choice is a good idea, they should look at the example of communist built (or rebuilt) cities. You had your choice between dreary concrete, or, well, dreary concrete.
People complaining about having to face the 'overwhelming' options always just make me think they're lazy and whiney.
I can believe that. I've been frustrated by how much work it takes to, say, plan a short vacation (partially because of all the options) and can see envisioning a simpler world where I just point at one lighted square on a 3x3 grid of pre-planned choices: "Rome", "China", "Alaska", "Toledo", "New York", "Niagara Falls"...
I remind myself, though, that I wish to have a good time and not be trapped in someone else's paradise (which often involves lots of shopping, and thus is a kind of purgatory for me).
I'm also reminded of my stint in Marketing & Communications, where the graphic designers would toss in one or two options they were sure would go down in flames in order to make the boss feel like he was making a choice among three options.
When I go into a store with 3000 flavors, I have a really easy time choosing what I want...
I do too. I'll usually narrow a menu to about three or less options rather quickly -- often to just one. My girlfriend will be rather torn by the experience, and agonize about the choices. (I try to point out we can come back later and try another set, so it doesn't matter which ones she chooses this time.)
If you have enough options you can make up something mentally and see if they have it. And yes, I agree it's good to toss in something unusual -- never know what wonderful new experiences you'll find. And if it's awful, you can tell yourself: "Well, at least I tried that and know to avoid it next time."
Unlike the example above with Coke, where there *is* a real difference between having caffeine or not (or aspartame or not), I'm most often annoyed by a vast array of non-choices.
For example, there are a vast array of chewing gums, but every last one of them now contains asparatame. Or a decent soap without trichlosan. Or I'll walk into the candy aisle and look at a thousand choices, none (or only one) of which will offer dark chocolate. Or can't find malted milk balls anymore. For almost a decade, I couldn't find a cordless phone and headset combination, even though both were easily available separately.
I blame my fellow consumers.
Perhaps people who think that limiting peoples choice is a good idea, they should look at the example of communist built (or rebuilt) cities.
Long live Corbusier.
I think a problem is that we don't get a lot of historical perspective, Michael. Are they teaching, today, in public schools, the massive failure of centralized planning? The failure of the Communist regimes which ruled the the majority of the earth's habitable lands?
I fear not, but would think that would be a minor historical fact the next generation of citizens might need to know.
I don't want to justify any attempt to reduce people's choices.
Though on the topic; back when I sold CutCo knives for a summer in college (not a pleasant experience, though some folks made money) they advised us not to give people the catalogue and let them look through it themselves. That always seemed odd to me. I don't know if they just wanted us to push the more expensive sets as opposed to letting someone just buy a single knife, or if giving people the opportunity to try and figure things out themselves was a bad sales technique , at least for some people.
I do remember Minsky, in "the society of Mind," (a book on AI written sometime over a decade ago) claimed that sometimes intelligent systems respond to an inability to decide between choices with not making a decision at all or delaying indefinitely.
As you noted, that seems to be more an issue for women, whose awareness is more diffuse and who try to take in all their surroundings, as opposed to men who tend to be more goal oriented and who can much more readily ignore peripheral information.
An example of that type of inability to focus; my girlfriend can't stand if there's a box sitting in the room, even if no guests are coming over, even if it's not in her way. She says it "calls" to her.
As for groceries; don't you have one of the more hippie-esque grocery stores near you? Wild Oats? Trader Joe's? Whole Foods?
They tend to be very good on chocolate, and may even have some aspartame or sucralose free gum.
I'm also reminded of my stint in Marketing & Communications, where the graphic designers would toss in one or two options they were sure would go down in flames in order to make the boss feel like he was making a choice among three options.
Ah, the wonderful psychology of percieved choice!
For example, there are a vast array of chewing gums, but every last one of them now contains asparatame. Or a decent soap without trichlosan. Or I'll walk into the candy aisle and look at a thousand choices, none (or only one) of which will offer dark chocolate. Or can't find malted milk balls anymore. For almost a decade, I couldn't find a cordless phone and headset combination, even though both were easily available separately.
Ah, some practical advice, since I share the same concerns. Look for sorbitol in the hard-shelled gums, where it tends to be more common, and sorbitol is a pretty bio-intert substance. (However, when mixed with KNO3, makes a pretty good amateur rocket fuel from what I hear...)
We get our soap sans triclosan at Target.
And, finally, you can usually find malted milk balls in the form of Whoppers at Walgreens.
I'm also glad to hear I wasn't the only person who had that trouble with cordless phones. I remember hunting for one for my office back in '95, and I found *one* phone that had both and was priced even semi-reasonably.
I do remember Minsky, in "the society of Mind," (a book on AI written sometime over a decade ago) claimed that sometimes intelligent systems respond to an inability to decide between choices with not making a decision at all or delaying indefinitely.
Yeah, but I'd take Minsky's ideas on that (or even in general) with a grain of salt. Algorithms that don't converge on a solution continue indefinitely, but most of our decisions aren't made by any sort of algorithm. His statement is just a generalziation of iterative algorithmics in computers.
Hack, algorithms don't even decide in any sort of real sense as we do. They lack intent.
sorbitol is a pretty bio-intert substance.
iirc, Sorbitol is pretty nasty if it actually gets into your body. It's used as a sweetener since it's poorly absorbed. (though it can give you the runs if you get way too much)
Algorithms that don't converge on a solution continue indefinitely
Granted. And if people really need to make a choice, then I don't think they'll hang around the story all day. I suppose my question was; lacking a sufficiently strong need or a call to immediate action, could an increase in a person's number of choices cause them not to make a choice when one might otherwise have occurred? And if so, who would be more likely to do this? I can't imagine myself acting this way in an area that I knew much about, but maybe in one that I didn't. For example, I don't know which garage might give me an honest repair job, so unless the problem is immediate I put off looking and tend to other things.
Megan McArdle has an interesting article on this kind of reaction regarding health insurance. link
iirc, Sorbitol is pretty nasty if it actually gets into your body. It's used as a sweetener since it's poorly absorbed. (though it can give you the runs if you get way too much)
You're kinda right on that. It occurs naturally in your cells, and in excess it can cause nerve and eye damage, which happens in diabetics. (The dose makes the poison, afterall) However, since you can also inject it in pretty large doses i.v., (5% dilution for continuous heparin infusion), it's not that toxic.
It can cause bowel problems in some people, though.
So I think the toxicity thing is probably from some hippy over blowing it because of what happens in diabetics.
Regarding your other question, that's probably a pretty broad topic. In my personal experience, it takes a lack of knowledge, a nagging importance, and a non-immediate timeframe.
However, since you can also inject it in pretty large doses i.v., (5% dilution for continuous heparin infusion), it's not that toxic.
My bad. Yes I was basing my statements on sorbitol's effect on diabetics. Sorry if I overspoke.
Ryan: ... they advised us not to give people the catalogue and let them look through it themselves...
Maybe giving them the catalog also gave them more permission to buy (or not buy) at leisure -- and comparison shop?
[Minsky claimed] sometimes intelligent systems respond to an inability to decide between choices with not making a decision at all or delaying indefinitely.
Well, I can't vouch for Minsky and AIs in general, but I admit there have been times when *I've* been overwhelmed by an issue and responded by taking a nap. I suspect some others also respond to difficult situations by drinking or taking drugs.
... my girlfriend can't stand if there's a box sitting in the room, even if no guests are coming over, even if it's not in her way. She says it "calls" to her.
I don't know if this is similar, but I prefer to shut the door to the room completely during meetings. If it's open even a crack in a typical corporate environment, I'll have to work hard not to pay attention to what's going on outside.
As for groceries; don't you have one of the more hippie-esque grocery stores near you? Wild Oats? Trader Joe's? Whole Foods?
Great suggestion, Ryan. I'll try that.
God bless the hippies.
Mike: And, finally, you can usually find malted milk balls in the form of Whoppers at Walgreens.
I used to find them there. Last time I looked I didn't see any. I buy them only rarely, so I guess I couldn't blame them if they discontinued 'em, but it's still nice to do so once in a while.
I'm also glad to hear I wasn't the only person who had that trouble with cordless phones. I remember hunting for one for my office back in '95, and I found *one* phone that had both and was priced even semi-reasonably.
Ditto. It was a Uniden, and died after only a few months' use. So I bought another one -- which suffered an identical fate. So I gave up and waited for the next century.
Ryan: Megan McArdle has an interesting article on this kind of reaction regarding health insurance...
Interesting that you should mention it, as I just finished reading the same article.
Hey, and they're Kosher too. :-)
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« ACLU Leader and Child Porn |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Struggling with Sin »
|
I have often wondered this myself.
A slight aside first. People complaining about having to face the 'overwhelming' options always just make me think they're lazy and whiney. In my recent binge purchasing of a baby equipment inventory, I've had to evaluate a bunch of things. Rip it apart, kick the tires, learn all kinds of things. There are also a bunch of options, and a whole bunch of things to buy. However, I still had plenty of time to meet the responsibilities of my demanding job, and even my own studies.
As a disclaimer, the rest of this is midnight pondering and hypothesizing. Take with the appropriate amount of salt.
Now, as to the strange phenomenon of the proliferation of choices existing for people to face, the trivial way to explain it would be a power argument. They wish to have power over people, and express their determination on them.
However, I think it may be much more subtle than that. As humans, we tend to be rather arrogant creatures that know what's best for everyone. Diet coke is obvioulsy better for you, I mean my friend who developed diabetes did it all becaue of coke! (Nevermind that me, with functional hypoglycemia, can *really* use straight up Coke or Sprite at times.) In order for their pride to not be wounded, or have their ideas invalidated, you can't let people choose! Allowing choice would invalidate their ideas!
Perhaps it's also the "pity of the arrogant." People who think they're smart feel overwhelmed by the choice, and why should we inflict such a horrible crisis upon those less intelligent?
Also, the survey in the Godiva chocolate example is pretty contrived. When I go into a store with 3000 flavors, I have a really easy time choosing what I want. I look, see something I might like, and say, "I'll have that!" How is having to choose between chocolates at all frustrating and/or difficult?? I'd love to see how the questions are worded.
Or even look at the example of Dunkin' Donuts, where their advantage is that you do get to pick and choose between 20-30 different choices of doughnuts. Once again, it's easy. I know what I really like, and every so often I'll throw in a lark. However, I think that level of choice is what made them successful. (That and really good coffee!)
After all, it's *amazing* to have this much choice. It certainly beats the choices in some countries of "white rice with dirt for flavor" or "white rice without dirt".
Perhaps people who think that limiting peoples choice is a good idea, they should look at the example of communist built (or rebuilt) cities. You had your choice between dreary concrete, or, well, dreary concrete.
Posted by: Michael Zappe on September 9, 2007 07:36 AM