POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY

The more alternatives, the more difficult the choice.

It goes without saying, that some choice is good and that more choice is even better. The freedom to choose lies at the heart of any democratic, equal and healthy society based on a free market, ranging from choices as important as to which school our children attend, who to vote for, to choices as mundane as to what to eat from the canteen menu, what to wear and which TV programme to watch this evening. The flipside of having choice is that we also have to take responsibility for the decisions we make – consequences may arise.

Various studies suggest that feeling that we can control our destiny is vital to our psychological well-being, and that limiting personal choice reduces well-being. There is no doubt that over the past 20 or 30 years we have been seduced by the power of choice, to the point that most of us take it for granted, and don’t really give it a second thought. Choice means we have freedom. It means we can express who we are as individuals and it’s central to our identity. Denying or restricting choice is considered something to be avoided at all costs. Choice is now central in every domain of our lives.

But is having greater and greater personal choice really better for us? Some psychologists believe not, and have shown in research that increased choice makes us unable to make decisions and reduces our well-being. Barry Schwartz, acknowledged world expert on the psychology of choice, states that the fact that some choice is good doesn’t necessarily mean that more choice is better. Schwartz refers to this as “the tyranny of choice”.

Four decades ago, sociologist Alvin Toffler described a psychological reaction to constant change and too much choice as “future shock”. He theorised that faced with too much choice – which he called “overchoice” – in too short a period of time, decisions would be harder and take longer to make as we’d have to process much more information. This would lead to slower reactions and decisions, and ultimately to psychological issues such as depression, distress and neurosis.

Recent research in psychology backs this up, suggesting that there are a number of problems associated with having too much choice. For example, in order to make a choice you’ll have to make some form of comparison between the different alternatives, which means sifting through an increasingly large amount of information about each one.

Some parts of the NHS appointments service in the UK utilises a “choose and book” system. Previously, in years gone by, patients would have gone directly to their local hospital; now there are pages of statistics from several hospitals within a 30-mile radius to wade through, including details on infection and mortality rates, car-parking availability and staff satisfaction rates. In situations like this, even if the majority of the available pieces of information are irrelevant to the choice you’re making, you still have to decide whether or not to take each one into account. It goes without saying that the volume and complexity of information you have to deal with increases the likelihood of making the “wrong” choice or making a mistake. In short, having too much choice causes you to worry, and is likely to lead to lower rather than higher well-being.

Findings from various experimental studies challenge the implicit assumption that having more options is better than having fewer. For example, shoppers are more likely to buy gourmet jams or chocolates and students are more likely to complete an optional class essay when they’re offered a limited array of six choices rather than an extensive array of 24–30 choices. What’s more, the shoppers reported greater subsequent satisfaction with their selections, and the students wrote better essays when their original set of choices was limited.

Psychology researchers conclude from these studies that having too much choice can have significantly demotivating effects. In relatively trivial contexts, not making a decision, such as going home without buying a pot of jam or a box of chocolates, is neither here nor there. More worryingly, choice overload may hinder decision-making in other more serious contexts, such as choosing medical treatment, especially where there are (or are perceived to be) costs associated with making the “wrong” choice, and where it takes the chooser a significant amount of time and effort to make an informed decision.

Are you a maximiser or a satisficer?

Back in the 1950s, Nobel prize-winning social scientist Herbert Simon introduced the distinction between maximising and “satisficing” as decision-making strategies. A maximiser is someone who wants to make the best possible choice, and so they complete an exhaustive study of all the available options before making their decision. A satisficer, on the other hand, is someone who is looking to make a “good enough” choice, so they keep looking at options only until they find one which meets their minimum requirements.

It’s unlikely you’re a 100 per cent maximiser or 100 per cent satisficer, although you’ll lean more towards one than the other. If you agree with statements such as “I never settle for second best,” and “Whenever I’m faced with a choice, I try to imagine what all the other possibilities are, even ones that aren’t present at the moment” you’re more likely to be a maximiser than a satisficer.

Although studies show that people who maximise tend to get better, higher-paying jobs than satisficers, at the same time they take longer to settle in and they’re more stressed, anxious and frustrated! Maximisers are also more prone than satisficers to be affected by social comparisons and have doubts about their ability compared to others.

. Science Book