Choice overload
decided that it was too big of a burden and relied on heuristics, whilst others used the same method as the limited choice groups. Those who employed the latter, took considerably longer, leading to a greater variation in times (the longest was 49 seconds while the shortest was 9.4 seconds) and therefore the greater standard deviation. Furthermore, those in the limited choice group were a lot more satisfied with their decision, rating it an 8.4/10 on average compared to the average rating of 6.8/10 given by the extensive choice group. This is likely due to the presence of less non-chosen options, so less negative feelings such as regret are promoted, because a more structured and rational decision-making process was used, leading to more confidence in their final decisions and therefore more satisfaction. Also, the limited choice group had less variation in their ratings (standard deviation 1.15 compared to 1.31), suggesting that whilst only a few were satisfied with eight choices almost everyone who had three was on the top end of the scale. The results are consistent with the choice overload hypothesis. However, it is important to note the limitations of the experiment. Firstly, no price was paid for the sweets – they were all free. This means that it is not representative of real-world markets, because when participants are given sweets for free, they are unlikely to feel as much regret as if they had paid for that same sweet. This is reflected in the data set, as the lowest rating was 5/10, suggesting that nobody was truly dissatisfied with their decision. Furthermore, sweets are a product which elicit strong brand and flavour loyalty, especially well-known brands like Haribo or Celebrations. This meant that if a participant saw their favourite sweet on display, they would have picked it regardless of whether two or seven others accompanied it. Results where a Creme Egg was displayed had to be scrapped as participants took under five seconds and rated their decision a 10/10. Choice overload can be applied by businesses to positively affect their sales and revenue, as it affects consumer motivation and satisfaction drastically. 3 Many clothes stores, for example, may assume that by displaying thirty pairs of jeans people are more likely to find one they like. Instead, businesses should look to create a more curated, but still wide-ranging, selection of products which is likely to meet consumers’ needs. This will reduce the information overload and any nagging sense of regret that might put off someone from making a purchase. However, this alone is not enough; reducing options is only the first step. Instead, stores should guide consumers through the buying process, keeping the number of large decisions consumers need to make to a minimum. This can be executed by organizing products in a way that will guide them to specific needs or by having a very intuitive layout so that consumers do not need to decide where to go next. Choice architecture can also be used to nudge people towards curated bundles or common default options to reduce the effects of choice overload. However, it is important that some freedom is maintained and that it does not become too manipulative, as this could also put off purchase and is somewhat immoral. The key is to find balance; to not overwhelm consumers with an overabundance of choice but also to not deprive them of it; choice is a luxury. A great example is Netflix, which through its ‘recommended for you’ section cuts down the number of options available but also give the consumer the ability to browse the whole catalogue.
Applications of this theory also go beyond consumer markets. Iyengar and Lepper, through a secondary experiment, found that students produced better essays when they had six options rather than thirty, but students were more motivated to do the extra credit if given thirty options. 4 This can be applied to
3 See The Decision Lab 2020. 4 See Iyengar and Lepper 2000: 997-999.
17
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting