Schwartz also constantly mixes up objective opportunity and the representation of such: “. . . choice has negative features, and the negative features escalate as the number of choices increases.” No, the negative features escalate as the number of choices entertained, or represented to the self, increases.
It is very important for Schwartz that whatever negative consequences there may be here aren’t a simple function of the number of choices, but are rather a function of the individual’s psychology, otherwise all the advice he gives us (choose when to choose; satisfice more, maximize less; don’t dwell on foregone alternatives; be grateful; anticipate adaptation; be wary of social comparison; etc.) would be moot.
But if he lays too much weight on the point that whether or not there are negative consequences to more choice depends on how individuals psychologically manage their representation of the choices, their procedures for making them, and their attitudes toward choices already made, then it becomes fairly clear that the market, per se, isn’t harming anyone, or causing dissatisfaction by causing choices to proliferate. But Schwartz wouldn’t want that to be clear.
Like Layard’s argument that upward moves in the income distribution impose a negative externality on people beneath, Schwartz is more or less arguing that a high number of alternatives amounts to a negative externality of markets. But in both cases, the authors provide very useful and likely effective techniques of individual psychological management to immunize oneself against the negative effects of dimished comparative position or a vast array of choices. But this self-help advice directly implies that the market is not the causal origin of the imagined harm.
points to a type of response to this issue wouldn’t significantly restrict freedom. The use of well selected defaults can help people out.
I think there is some middle ground on this. Why do the choices people face at the supermarket not cause the same problems as the choices people make on their 401K? I think it is because 1) the consequences are smaller 2) people go to the supermarket a lot and become pretty good at supermarket shopping and 3) there is feedback to help you make good decisions (if everybody hates the generic soda, next time you don’t buy the generic soda).
In addition to what Joe said, I also think that supermarkets are structured in order to help you make choices. E.g. I don’t make a choice amongst breakfast cereals, I make a choice amongst toasted muselis, and amazingly enough the muselis are in the same place on the shelves.
The first time I read about the experiment with the jams, I met a friend that evening outside Starbucks (I don’t drink coffee so I don’t often go to Starbucks but it was a meeting place both of us knew). While waiting for her, I counted the coffee options on offer and came up with about 35 not counting the additional options of having whatever you had with soy milk or an extra shot of espresso or whatever. Either we have to believe that:
a) the normal interpretation of the jam experiment is right and Starbucks is sacrificing profits in order to fulfill a higher motive of supplying the world with a lot of coffee choices
b) the normal interpretation of the jam experiment doesn’t tell the whole of the story.
If you look at the Starbucks menu, those 35 odd choices are broken down into about 6 major level decisions (espresso, cappucino, etc) with 6 sub-options within each. People are not choosing from 35 different options, they are making two choices from two different sets of six options.
I would be interested in the results of a jam experiment where they tried presenting a large number of jam options but broken down into groups like Starbucks does.
I always thought what The Jam Experiment mostly showed was that, after sampling 30 different jams, a customer will feel like a pig, and be in no mood whatsoever to buy yet MORE jam.
points to a type of response to this issue wouldn’t significantly restrict freedom. The use of well selected defaults can help people out.
I think there is some middle ground on this. Why do the choices people face at the supermarket not cause the same problems as the choices people make on their 401K? I think it is because 1) the consequences are smaller 2) people go to the supermarket a lot and become pretty good at supermarket shopping and 3) there is feedback to help you make good decisions (if everybody hates the generic soda, next time you don’t buy the generic soda).
In addition to what Joe said, I also think that supermarkets are structured in order to help you make choices. E.g. I don’t make a choice amongst breakfast cereals, I make a choice amongst toasted muselis, and amazingly enough the muselis are in the same place on the shelves.
The first time I read about the experiment with the jams, I met a friend that evening outside Starbucks (I don’t drink coffee so I don’t often go to Starbucks but it was a meeting place both of us knew). While waiting for her, I counted the coffee options on offer and came up with about 35 not counting the additional options of having whatever you had with soy milk or an extra shot of espresso or whatever. Either we have to believe that:
a) the normal interpretation of the jam experiment is right and Starbucks is sacrificing profits in order to fulfill a higher motive of supplying the world with a lot of coffee choices
b) the normal interpretation of the jam experiment doesn’t tell the whole of the story.
If you look at the Starbucks menu, those 35 odd choices are broken down into about 6 major level decisions (espresso, cappucino, etc) with 6 sub-options within each. People are not choosing from 35 different options, they are making two choices from two different sets of six options.
I would be interested in the results of a jam experiment where they tried presenting a large number of jam options but broken down into groups like Starbucks does.
I always thought what The Jam Experiment mostly showed was that, after sampling 30 different jams, a customer will feel like a pig, and be in no mood whatsoever to buy yet MORE jam.