More and less: Designing for high-stakes decisions

The paradox of choice

In order to understand how people make decisions online, it is first important to understand how we approach decision-making. Barry Schwartz’s recent book The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less presents a compelling picture of the proliferation of choice in our society. Schwartz describes a study where shoppers in a grocery store were presented with a selection of jams to sample. One group was presented with six options and another with twenty-four. 30% of those in the six jam group purchased one of the jams while only 3% of those exposed to the wider array ended up purchasing one. The increase in choice made it harder to make a decision. And of those who did end up purchasing a jam, those from the group with six options reported being happier with their selection than those who had twenty-four options, despite the fact that the jams were not qualitatively different.

While this study shows that more options tend to yield a less satisfactory result, the way we approach decision-making varies significantly depending on our individual decision-making styles as well as on the circumstances. Schwartz identifies two styles of decision-making: maximizers and satisficers. A maximizer sees decision-making as the process of finding the one best possible option. The maximizer has to see and compare every alternative, and this quest for an exhaustive review of options dominates the experience. The maximizer’s greatest concern is missing out on a better option that might be just around the corner. The satisificer on the other hand looks for a choice that is good enough. Satisficers do not have low expectations—rather they accept that there is more than one option that will satisfy them. Once the satisficer finds an option that meets their initial criteria they are content to conclude their search, whereas the maximizer has to continue looking for the best of all the options, establishing new criteria as they go. The satisficing mentality can be summed up by a quote from designer Milton Glaser, “Less isn’t more, just enough is more.”

In case after case, Schwartz demonstrates that satisficing tends to make people happier than maximizing. He shows how the effort and stress that go into maximizing offset any increase in the quality of the outcome it may bring. Maximizers may do better objectively, but they do worse subjectively. They feel worse about their decisions and are less happy with the results than satisficers. Schwartz explains that having more options means having more opportunities for regret, and “what if” scenarios.

The trouble is that, when facing high-stakes decisions, all of us are likely to engage in maximizing behavior. Good may be good enough when buying a pair of jeans, but when making decisions about our health or long-term financial security, we don’t just want to make a decision—we want to make the right decision. But how do we decide what the right decision is?

Page 2 of 6

Previous Page

Next Page