Increases Our Negative Emotions.Pdf

Tyranny
of
Logic suggests that having options allows people to select precisely what makes them happiest. But as, studies show, abundant choice often makes for misery

The

Choice
By Barry Schwartz

mericans today choose among more options in more parts of life than has ever been possible before. To an extent, the opportunity to choose enhances our lives. It is only logical to thinkthat if some choice is good, more is better; people who care about having infinite options will benefit from them, and those who do not can always just ignore the 273 versions of cereal they have never tried. Yet recent research strongly suggests that, psychologically, this assumption is wrong. Although some choice is undoubtedly better than none, more is not always better than less. This evidence isconsistent with large-scale social trends. Assessments of well-being by various social scientists—among them, David G. Myers of Hope College and Robert E. Lane of Yale University— reveal that increased choice and increased affluence have, in fact, been accompanied by decreased well-being in the U.S. and most other affluent societies. As the gross domestic product more than doubled in the past 30years, the proportion of the population describing itself as “very happy” declined by about 5 percent, or by some 14 million people. In addition, more of us than ever are clinically depressed. Of course, no one believes that a single factor explains decreased well-being, but a number of findings indicate that the explosion of choice plays an important role. Thus, it seems that as society growswealthier and people become freer to do whatever they want, they get less happy. In an era of ever greater personal autonomy, choice and control, what could account for this degree of misery? Along with several colleagues, I have recently conducted research that offers insight into why many people end up unhappy rather than pleased when their options expand. We began by making a distinction between“maximizers” (those who always aim to make the best possible choice) and “satisficers” (those who aim for “good enough,” whether or not better selections might be out there). We borrowed the term “satisficers” from the late Nobel Prize–winning psychologist and economist Herbert A. Simon of Carnegie Mellon University. In particular, we composed a set of statements— the Maximization Scale— to diagnosepeople’s propensity to maximize. Then we had several thousand people rate themselves from 1 to 7 (from “completely disagree”

A

THE MAXIMIZATION SCALE
THE STATEMENTS BELOW distinguish maximizers from satisficers. Subjects rate themselves from 1 to 7, from “completely disagree” to “completely agree,” on each statement. We generally consider people whose average rating is higher than 4 to bemaximizers. When we looked at averages from thousands of subjects, we found that about a third scored higher than 4.75 and a third lower than 3.25. Roughly 10 percent of subjects were extreme maximizers (averaging greater than 5.5), and 10 percent were extreme satisficers (averaging lower than 2.5.) — B.S.

faced with choice, imagine what 1 Whenever I’mpossibilitiesaare, evenI try tothat aren’t all theother ones present at the moment. how job, it’s only right 2 No matterbe on satisfied I am with myopportunities. for me to the lookout for better I am in the I often 3 Whenstations to car listening to the radio, playing,check other see if something better is even if I am relatively satisfied with what I’m listening to.

4 When I watch TV, I channel surf, often scanning through the availableoptions even while attempting to watch
one program. treat relationships 5 Ion before finding thelike clothing: I expect to try a lot perfect fit.

6 I often find it difficult to shop for a gift for a friend. videos 7 Rentingthe bestis really difficult. I’m always struggling to pick one.
shopping, 8 WhenI really love.I have a hard time finding clothing that

Recipe for Unhappiness
S E V E...