Why Not? (![[info]](http://stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} ywong) wrote,@ 2004-05-27 23:51:00 |
|
I was reading this article in Scientific American (available if you subscribe) the other day. I had heard references to "studies" before, but I had never actually heard exactly why having more choices could result in decreased satisfaction.
In fact, it seems that given a certain type of personality, and a sufficient array of choices, more choices can cause nearly guaranteed depression and suffering. It works kind of like this:
First, you have to have the "optimizer" personality. The study divides personalities into two types, "optimizers" and "satisficers." Satisficers establish a set of criteria for choices in their lives and work until those are satisfied, and then make the choice. Optimizers seek to make sure they have the best choice among all options. There may or may not be a correlation between the Meyers-Briggs J and P types, but it's uncertain. So optimizers are always on the lookout to "trade up," and when they do have to make choice, are always careful to consider all possible alternatives, in order to be sure they have the best one. Satisficers just make sure they can find a choice that fulfills a set criteria. So, some significant portion of the population is optimizing (about 30 - 40%, as I recall from the article).
Then, there is the notion of "lost benefit." This is a perceived benefit of alternatives that are "lost" when one makes a choice. If you are given a number of choices, and you choose one, you might perceive to have "lost" the benefit of all the other choices you didn't choose (thus incurring negative benefit). This is a common cause of regret when a choice doesn't turn out to be as satisfying as you anticipated - the lost benefit exceeds the real benefit of your choice.
If you have a large enough array of choices, the mere number of choices would result in horribly high lost benefit to an optimizer whenever they had to choose, and given a sufficiently high number of options, no choice could possibly result in a positive benefit scenario (i.e. no choice exists whose benefit exceeds the lost benefit of all the choices that need to be turned down). This would apply not only consumer product selection, but in careers, large purchases, and other life choices. The researchers in the article state a positive correlation between increasing market choices available in modern economies and increasing depression and dissatisfaction, and that extreme optimizers (the optimizer-satisficer measurement is a spectrum) almost always had problems with depression.
So, the lesson is, try to narrow down the choices you have or you'll just end up being disappointed all the time.
In fact, it seems that given a certain type of personality, and a sufficient array of choices, more choices can cause nearly guaranteed depression and suffering. It works kind of like this:
First, you have to have the "optimizer" personality. The study divides personalities into two types, "optimizers" and "satisficers." Satisficers establish a set of criteria for choices in their lives and work until those are satisfied, and then make the choice. Optimizers seek to make sure they have the best choice among all options. There may or may not be a correlation between the Meyers-Briggs J and P types, but it's uncertain. So optimizers are always on the lookout to "trade up," and when they do have to make choice, are always careful to consider all possible alternatives, in order to be sure they have the best one. Satisficers just make sure they can find a choice that fulfills a set criteria. So, some significant portion of the population is optimizing (about 30 - 40%, as I recall from the article).
Then, there is the notion of "lost benefit." This is a perceived benefit of alternatives that are "lost" when one makes a choice. If you are given a number of choices, and you choose one, you might perceive to have "lost" the benefit of all the other choices you didn't choose (thus incurring negative benefit). This is a common cause of regret when a choice doesn't turn out to be as satisfying as you anticipated - the lost benefit exceeds the real benefit of your choice.
If you have a large enough array of choices, the mere number of choices would result in horribly high lost benefit to an optimizer whenever they had to choose, and given a sufficiently high number of options, no choice could possibly result in a positive benefit scenario (i.e. no choice exists whose benefit exceeds the lost benefit of all the choices that need to be turned down). This would apply not only consumer product selection, but in careers, large purchases, and other life choices. The researchers in the article state a positive correlation between increasing market choices available in modern economies and increasing depression and dissatisfaction, and that extreme optimizers (the optimizer-satisficer measurement is a spectrum) almost always had problems with depression.
So, the lesson is, try to narrow down the choices you have or you'll just end up being disappointed all the time.
