Choice overload
choice overload theory lies the fact that with more options there is always going to be more regret as the attractiveness of non-chosen options rise as there are more of them.
Iyengar and Lepper ran one of the first field experiments on choice overload, aiming to uncover the motivational consequences of limited versus expensive choice. 2 They set up a booth at an upscale grocery store on two separate days for five hours. On the first day they had six different flavours of jam (limited choice) and on the second twenty-four different flavours (extensive choice). They also ensured that all flavours were exotic as, with a clear preference, the effects of choice overload will not come through as participants would likely default to their preference. After choosing which jam to sample participants were handed a one-dollar discount coupon and then of course had the possibility to purchase a jar. The results from this experiment are extremely significant: initially, they found that when there were only six options on display, only 40% of the customers in the store stopped at the booth, while when there were twenty-four options, 60% stopped. However, whilst extensive choice may be more attractive, only 3% of participants who sampled a jam at that booth went on to make a purchase, while 30% of those at the limited choice booth made a purchase. This experiment indicates that a wider array of products does in fact draw more attention, but it actually diminishes motivations to purchase and to make a choice due to the burden of processing extensive information. Instead, those with limited choice had a simple decision-making process, allowing easier commitment. Through my own field experiment, I aimed to see how time taken to decide, satisfaction and regret all varied with the number of options – factors which arguably relate more directly to the cognitive and emotive experience of choice overload. My hypothesis was that those who had a choice between eight would take significantly longer and end up more dissatisfied. Similar to Iyengar and Lepper, I set up a display advertising free sweets on two different days, at morning break and then lunch. On the first day participants had a choice between three sweets, and on the second a choice between eight. A wide array of sweets was offered – Celebrations, Tesco marshmallows, Maltesers and Haribos – to ensure that decisions were more difficult and time consuming, while also increasing the attractiveness of non- chosen options (as they are very different) to promote regret. Once told their instructions, the time taken for the decision to be made was recorded and after eating the sweet participants had to place their satisfaction on a scale ranging from 1-10 (1 being extreme regret and 10 being total satisfaction). After getting forty participants to choose a sweet across both days it was clear that the results confirmed my initial hypothesis: the greater the choice, the greater the time taken and the less satisfaction. When given only three options participants took on average 6.35 seconds to come to a decision compared to the 17.83 seconds taken by the extensive choice group. As expected, when presented with more choice, the times were considerably longer. This is because humans often employ a mentality of loss aversion; they want to ensure that they are not losing out on anything and therefore assess every single option individually, resulting in a greater time being recorded. However, the extensive choice group had a much larger standard deviation – 10.75 seconds compared to 2.55 seconds. This is because when faced with three options there was no information overload and everybody used the same method; namely, assess all three options and then come to a decision. This meant they could commit to a decision with more ease taking on average 80% less time. Instead, when eight were on display, some participants
2 See Iyengar and Lepper 2000: 995-996.
16
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting