Editing Choice (section)

==Number of options and paradox==
Several research studies in economic psychology have concentrated on examining the variations in individual behavior when confronted with a low versus high choice set size, which refers to the number of available options. A particular area of interest lies in determining whether individuals demonstrate a higher propensity to purchase a product from a larger choice set compared to a smaller one. Currently, the effect of choice set size on the probability of a purchase is unclear. In some cases, large choice set sizes discourage individuals from making a choice<ref>Iyengar and Lepper.</ref> and in other cases it either encourages them or has no effect.<ref name="auto">Norwood, Lusk, Arunachalam, and Henneberry.</ref> One study compared the allure of more choice to the tyranny of too much choice. Individuals went virtual shopping in different stores that had a randomly determined set of choices ranging from 4 to 16, with some being good choices and some being bad. Researchers found a stronger effect for the allure of more choice. However, they speculate that due to random assignment of number of choices and goodness of those choices, many of the shops with fewer choices included zero or only one option that was reasonably good, which may have made it easier to make an acceptable choice when more options were available.<ref>White, C. M., & Hoffrage, U. (2009). Testing the tyranny of too much choice against the allure of more choice. Psychology & Marketing, 26(3), 280-98.</ref>

There is some evidence that while greater choice has the potential to improve a person's welfare, sometimes there is such a thing as too much choice. For example, in one experiment involving a choice of free soda, individuals explicitly requested to choose from six as opposed to 24 sodas, where the only benefit from the smaller choice set would be to reduce the cognitive burden of the choice.<ref name="auto"/> A recent study supports this research, finding that human services workers indicated preferences for scenarios with limited options over extensive-options scenarios. As the number of choices within the extensive-options scenarios increased, the preference for limited options increased as well.<ref>Reed, D. D., DiGennaro Reed, F. D., Chok, J., & Brozyna, G. A. (2011). The 'tyranny of choice': Choice overload as a possible instance of effort discounting. The Psychological Record, 61(4), 547-60.</ref> Attempts to explain why choice can demotivate someone from a purchase have focuses on two factors. One assumes that perusing a larger number of choices imposes a cognitive burden on the individual.<ref>Norwood</ref> The other assumes that individuals can experience [[regret (emotion)|regret]] if they make a suboptimal choice, and sometimes avoid making a choice to avoid experiencing regret.<ref>Irons and Hepburn.</ref>

Further research has expanded on [[choice overload]], suggesting that there is a [[paradox of choice]]. As increasing options are available, three problems emerge. First, there is the issue of gaining adequate information about the choices in order to make a decision. Second, having more choices leads to an escalation of expectation. When there are increased options, people's standards for what is an acceptable outcome rise; in other words, choice "spoils you." Third, with many options available, people may come to believe they are to blame for an unacceptable result because with so many choices, they should have been able to pick the best one. If there is one choice available, and it ends up being disappointing, the world can be held accountable. When there are many options and the choice that one makes is disappointing, the individual is responsible.<ref>Schwartz, B. (2000). Self-determination: The tyranny of freedom. American Psychologist, 55(1), 79-88.</ref>

However, a recent meta-analysis of the literature on choice overload calls such studies into question.<ref>{{cite journal | last1=Scheibehenne | first1=Benjamin | last2=Greifeneder | first2=Rainer | last3=Todd | first3=Peter M. | title=Can There Ever Be Too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice Overload | journal=Journal of Consumer Research | publisher=Oxford University Press (OUP) | volume=37 | issue=3 | year=2010 | issn=0093-5301 | doi=10.1086/651235 | pages=409–425| s2cid=5802575 | url=http://edoc.unibas.ch/20586/1/PUBL_scheibehenne_greifeneder_JCR37_2010_409-425.pdf }}</ref> In many cases, researchers have found no effect of choice set size on people's beliefs, feelings, and behavior. Indeed, overall, the effect of "too many options" is minimal at best.

While it might be expected that it is preferable to keep one's options open, research has shown that having the opportunity to revise one's decisions leaves people less satisfied with the decision outcome.<ref>Gilbert, Daniel T., Ebert, Jane E. J. (2002). Decisions and revisions: The affective forecasting of changeable outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 82(4). 503-14.</ref> A recent study found that participants experienced higher regret after having made a reversible decision. The results suggest that reversible decisions cause people to continue to think about the still relevant choice options, which might increase dissatisfaction with the decision and regret.<ref>Bullens, L., van Harreveld, F., & Förster, J. (2011). Keeping one's options open: The detrimental consequences of decision reversibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(4), 800-05.</ref>

Individual personality plays a significant role in how individuals deal with large choice set sizes. Psychologists have developed a personality test that determines where an individual lies on the satisfier spectrum. A maximizer is one who always seeks the very best option from a choice set, and may anguish after the choice is made as to whether it was indeed the best. Satisfiers may set high standards but are content with a good choice, and place less priority on making the best choice. Due to this different approach to decision-making, maximizers are more likely to avoid making a choice when the choice set size is large, probably to avoid the anguish associated with not knowing whether their choice was optimal.<ref name="auto"/> One study looked at whether the differences in choice satisfaction between the two are partially due to a difference in willingness to commit to one's choices. It found that maximizers reported a stronger preference for retaining the ability to revise choices. Additionally, after making a choice to buy a poster, satisfiers offered higher ratings of their chosen poster and lower ratings of the rejected alternatives. Maximizers, however, were less likely to change their impressions of the posters after making their choice which left them less satisfied with their decision.<ref>Sparks, E. A., Ehrlinger, J., & Eibach, R. P. (2012). Failing to commit: Maximizers avoid commitment in a way that contributes to reduced satisfaction. Personality And Individual Differences, 52(1), 72-77.</ref>

Maximizers are less happy in life, perhaps due to their obsession with making optimal choices in a society where people are frequently confronted with choice.<ref>Schwartz, Barry{{Full citation needed|date=February 2022}}<!-- which of Schwartz' works is this referencing? --></ref> One study found that maximizers reported significantly less [[life satisfaction]], happiness, optimism, and self-esteem, and significantly more regret and depression, than did satisfiers. In regards to buying products, maximizers were less satisfied with consumer decisions and were more regretful. They were also more likely to engage in social comparison, where they analyze their relative social standing among their peers, and to be more affected by social comparisons in which others appeared to be in higher standing than them. For example, maximizers who saw their peer solve puzzles faster than themselves expressed greater doubt about their own abilities and showed a larger increase in negative mood.<ref>Schwartz, B., Ward, A., Monterosso, J., Lyubomirsky, S., White, K., & Lehman, D. R. (2002). Maximizing versus satisficing: Happiness is a matter of choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(5) 1178-97.</ref> On the other hand, people who refrain from taking better choices through drugs or other forms of escapism tend to be much happier in life.

Others{{Who|date=May 2013}} say that there is never too much choice and that there is a difference between happiness and satisfaction: a person who tries to find better decisions will often be dissatisfied, but not necessarily unhappy since his attempts at finding better choices did improve his lifestyle (even if it wasn't the ''best decision'' he will continually try to ''incrementally improve'' the decisions he takes).

[[Choice architecture]] is the process of encouraging people to make good choices through grouping and ordering the decisions in a way that maximizes successful choices and minimizes the number of people who become so overwhelmed by complexity that they abandon the attempt to choose. Generally, success is improved by presenting the smaller or simpler choices first, and by choosing and promoting sensible default options.<ref>{{cite book |author=Sheena Iyengar |title=The Art of Choosing |publisher=Twelve |year=2010 |pages=208–213 |isbn=978-0-446-50410-2 }}</ref>