The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less

When making decisions, people must weigh their priorities, and the pros and cons. Evaluating each option’s downsides requires people to make trade-offs, which impacts how satisfied they feel with their decisions in hindsight. Every option comes with an “opportunity cost,” or the downside of missing out on other opportunities because of one’s choice. By having a multitude of options, people must dwell on numerous “opportunity costs,” thereby increasing their chance that they will experience regret or second-guess their decision.

The author investigates the psychology of trade-offs, summarizing scientific studies which show that it makes people very unhappy and unsettled to have to confront trade-offs. Since people are hesitant to make trade-offs, they might simply procrastinate about their decision. For instance, having one product on sale motivates people to make a purchase; however, having two similar products on sale actually results in fewer purchases—customers avoid thinking about the trade-offs inherent in either option. This rule holds true even over trivial options with small prices.

Schwartz explains that the conflict of numerous trade-offs makes all the options seem unappealing. No matter what type of product or experience people are choosing from, their satisfaction with their choice decreases as their number of options increases. These negative emotions come to play a large role in the decision-making process, as people begin to focus on the emotions themselves rather than the decision. Studies show that being in a good mood tends to enhance decision making, yet ironically, people are unlikely to be in a good mood when making a big decision.

Schwartz summarizes several studies which demonstrate the correlation between increased options and diminished satisfaction. He notes that as one’s options increase, people feel that their choices matter more, and say more about them as a person. The author refers to several studies which demonstrate that, when faced with several options, people tend to deliberate and analyze more before making a choice. Counterintuitively, according to some studies, this analysis does not necessarily yield better decision making or produce greater insight.

The author reflects on how young people, especially those with financial means and talent, now have many more options than previous generations. While this gives them more freedom, it can also prompt intense anxiety and self-doubt. The author laments the distress that young people often experience as they try to navigate the plethora of choices available to them. Schwartz argues that throughout human evolution, people have usually had to make simple choices, usually to accept or reject something. Making a choice from myriad options with a large number of potential outcomes is not an easy task for the human brain.

The author considers solutions to this issue. One seemingly positive solution is to consider how most decisions are reversible. However, studies suggest that, even when people do not reverse their decisions, those who know it is an option tend to be less satisfied than people who believe their choice is permanent. Schwartz connects this with the maximizer's dissatisfaction, hypothesizing that they are less happy than others because they dwell on the trade-offs and opportunity costs that come with their decisions.

Anticipated regret is when people imagine the regret they might feel after making a certain decision, while post-decision regret is when, in hindsight, people wish they had made a different choice. Different personality types are more likely to experience regret. Schwartz believes that fear of regret spurs people to become maximizers, determined to make the perfect decision that they will never second-guess.

Omission Bias prompts people to downplay situations in which they failed to take action, while attaching more importance to their active choices. For instance, people would be more likely to regret buying the wrong shares than failing to buy the right ones, even if the losses were the same. However, in the long run, omission bias becomes less powerful, as in long-term hindsight people do regret times when they failed to take action.

People’s sense of regret is also heightened when they feel like they were close to their desired outcome. For example, people who narrowly miss a flight would feel more regret than those who are terribly late. Similarly, the “nearness effect” causes people who are close to winning to feel more regret than those who actually do more poorly—this explains why bronze medalists tend to be more satisfied with their performance than silver medalists. Another factor in regret is one’s sense of responsibility. If people are responsible for making a certain decision, such as picking a restaurant to eat at, they feel worse about their bad experience than those who shared it with them, but were not responsible.

The human imagination can make regret worse by adding in hypotheticals. This is called “counterfactual thinking,” and can make people’s regrets feel even worse emotionally. People engage in counterfactual thinking the most in certain high-stakes situations, such as romantic relationships, school grades, or bereavement. Generally, people think about “upward counterfactuals,” or hypotheticals in which some aspect of the situation is better and results in success. People engage much less in “downward counterfactuals,” which imagine more disastrous results than what they experienced; however, in doing so, they may feel more gratitude or satisfaction for how things turned out.

Schwartz maintains that counterfactual thinking can be useful, and that we should use it more intentionally by reaping the benefits of downward counterfactual thinking. Counterfactual thinking centered upon “upward counterfactuals,” however, can greatly diminish our satisfaction with a choice by contrasting it with an ideal, imagined option. These “contrast effects” only make the real-life decision look worse.

People’s relationship with regret informs how they make choices. Inaction inertia is a phenomenon in which people who have missed a good deal simply do not buy anything so they do not have to experience the regret of missing out. By putting off their decision, they can believe that they’ll find a similarly good deal in the future. The “sunk costs” bias also informs people’s regrets. If they have already made a purchase, people go to great lengths to make use of that purchase, even if it isn’t enjoyable or useful. For instance, having bought a pair of expensive and uncomfortable shoes, people are likely to keep them in the closet, unused, rather than giving them away and acknowledging that they are a loss.

Schwartz believes that sunk-cost effects are people’s way of trying to avoid regret. This phenomenon can inform high-stakes decisions, such as whether to continue a war: With the sunk-cost effect influencing decision making, people may feel that they have invested too much money and lives into a conflict to admit that it was a loss and live with that regret.

Schwartz posits that weighing different options only increases people’s opportunities to experience regret. He agrees with psychologist Janet Landman that the more appealing alternatives a person has, the more likely they are to feel regret. He ponders that there can be some benefits to regret, such as thinking seriously about one’s decisions, or thoroughly understanding or making amends for certain consequences. Nevertheless, taking measures to diminish one’s regret can be a boon for people’s mental health.

When people adapt to certain good experiences, they stop being so novel and pleasurable. This is also true of sensory stimulation in general: Over time, familiar smells and sights become less impactful. In spite of this, people still tend to believe that the enjoyment of a certain experience will stay the same, and they are disappointed when the pleasure diminishes over time.

Hedonic adaptation is when people have a positive new experience which changes their standard for themselves. For example, if someone tastes a fantastic new wine, they may enjoy other wines less than they used to, as they are comparing it to their new favorite. The author cites a study which compared people’s levels of happiness, and found that recent lottery winners were no happier, on average, than the general population. While they were ecstatic when they initially won, that feeling soon wore off due to adaptation.

Schwartz agrees with economist Tibor Scitovsky that the modern economy fosters an unsatisfying materialism in which people buy and buy, but feel less pleasure with their choices. Some people find themselves on a “hedonic treadmill,” buying newer, more exciting things to re-experience the pleasure of novelty. Similarly, Daniel Kahneman suggests that people are prone to the “satisfaction treadmill,” in which they keep raising their standards for general satisfaction.

Humans are notoriously bad at predicting how different decisions and life events would make them feel. Whether they over- or underestimate their positive or negative emotions, studies show that we tend to be off the mark. Nevertheless, these predictions form a basis for our decision making. The phenomenon of adaptation complicates decision-making and happiness, yet is an undeniable, fundamental aspect of our wiring. Schwartz recommends that people cope with adaptation by being aware of it, considering how their feelings about their decision will change over time, and focusing on gratitude for what they have.

While some experiences are absolutely good or bad, we judge most experiences through comparison. People compare their experiences with their hopes, their expectations, their real-life previous experiences, and what they know about others’ experiences. Social scientist Alex Michalos argues that as people’s material circumstances improve, so do their standards for their own happiness. This standard, which people usually create by comparing themselves to others, is also called a “hedonic zero point.” As people become more affluent and their social circle becomes wealthier, their expectations may rise even more, making it more difficult for them to enjoy things.

The author notes that social comparisons and status markers tend to be very important to people. Indeed, most people would rather live with less material comfort in a higher status relative to others, than in more material comfort but with a lower relative status. Anxiety about status is more prevalent now due to mass media, which allows people to compare their lifestyle with people of all societies and social classes, and not just their immediate neighbors. Part of solidifying one’s status is accessing “positional goods,” or finite products that not everyone can have. This puts people in competition with each other and fosters a “rat race” mentality.

Schwartz reflects on how counterproductive high expectations are, noting that they tend to erode feelings of happiness and satisfaction. He recommends that people keep their expectations in check, and make sure that really pleasurable experiences are rare so that they remain novel, and therefore, enjoyable. While social comparisons about every aspect of life are inevitable, it is best to not ruminate on unfavorable comparisons, as being sensitive to social comparisons is strongly associated with unhappiness.

Unsurprisingly, people who are maximizers tend to rely strongly on social comparisons to guide their buying decisions, while satisficers are less concerned about others’ purchases. The author reiterates that being a satisficer helps people maintain an independent and satisfied mindset in a world awash with options.

While thinking more about our choices sometimes yields better results, it also tends to make us feel worse about our decisions. Schwartz maintains that these experiences are not trivial, and can cause real mental distress. He claims that happiness is declining in developed nations, while depression rates and death by suicide are rising.

The author agrees with psychologist Seligman that having a sense of control over one’s life and choices is an essential part of happiness. He cites a study which showed that infants who controlled a play mobile over their cribs enjoyed its entertainment more than infants who had no control over it. In a very different study, nursing home residents thrived when they were given control over the decoration of their rooms when compared to residents with no control.

While people are keen to have the freedom to pursue myriad choices, this often comes with unrealistic expectations about the results of these choices, leading to disappointment. Schwartz believes that when people feel helpless, they tend to blame themselves or become more pessimistic about life. In a society that emphasizes the value of personal choices, independence, and discipline, people are more likely to feel bad about themselves when they are unsatisfied with their decisions. The author supports this argument by pointing to studies on Western countries, which show that societies that emphasize personal control have higher death by suicide rates than those that do not.

Moreover, people in modern American society tend to be unbound by family or community obligation, and make decisions from an individualistic frame of mind. Schwartz argues that the lack of these tethers hurts more than it helps by leaving people with an overwhelming array of life options. While individuals might find material success in these conditions, at the societal level they seem to degrade people’s mental health.

The author concludes his chapter by reiterating that in modern America, people are feeling more burdened than liberated by their choices due to numerous factors, including trade-offs, adaptation, self-blame and regret, social comparisons, and more. Next, he will provide the reader with a set of solutions to this persistent problem.