The Paradox of Choice - What We Can Do (Entry IV)

In my previous blogs, I discussed decision making and its unforeseen repercussions, oftentimes in the form of suffering. Since each choice a person makes could be loaded with regret and pain, it’s important to know how to take the necessary steps to mitigate, or even eliminate, sources of distress. As such, Schwartz provides several new ways of thinking.

Schwartz’s first piece of advice is to choose when to choose, which can significantly help save time. For example, a shopper can make the rule that she will visit no more than two stores when shopping for a pair of shoes (Schwartz 233). While she may have saved a small amount of money if she were to visit one more store, she would feel less emotionally drained when she encounters a limited number of choices. The reason is because she restricted her options and accepted whatever choice she made at the end of the search. Once the chooser makes habitual limitations, the perceived results, or subjective results, naturally become more satisfying.

Another important piece of advice Schwartz gives is for decision makers to think about the opportunity costs of opportunity costs. As mentioned in my previous blog, opportunity costs can detract from the perceived attractiveness of any decision. Thus, it’s important to limit the evaluation of the countless potential alternatives. By setting our own standards for what is “good enough,” there is no need to seek out so many more comparisons and add underserved stress to our lives.

Without a doubt, these methods of alleviating the emotional burdens on decision makers require practice and habitual adjustments. For anyone interested, Barry Schwartz also provides several sets of strategies and routines to help anyone follow his advice in The Paradox of Choice.

The Paradox of Choice - Why We Suffer (Entry III)

In the argument for a free market, choices are reasoned to bring autonomy and freedom, which in turn lead to more satisfaction and happiness. With this chain of reasoning, we can safely assume that the growth of material affluence and expansion of choices in recent years has brought a dramatic increase in subjective wellbeing. Psychologist Martin Seligman’s work suggests that the more choices, and thus control, people have, the less helpless and depressed they would be. As such, depression should be, as Schwartz put it, “going the way of polio.”

Herein lies the paradox. Just a few examples of how suffering and depression have increased since 1960: the divorce rate has doubled; the teen suicide rate has tripled; and the recorded violent crime rate has quadrupled. This decline in satisfaction mainly arises from the fact that each new option or selection is psychologically (consciously or not) added to a “list” of possible trade-offs, which carries heavy emotional consequences.

Using the language of an economist, opportunity cost, in simple terms, is the value of the next best alternative. For example, if taking a date to dinner at a quiet restaurant is the best choice for a Saturday night activity, the next best activity is going with her to a dance club, and the third best is going to a friend’s party, the opportunity cost is the amount paid for the dinner and the passed up opportunity, going to the dance club. However, this widely accepted way of evaluating decisions is not consistent psychologically. Even though there could be a single second-best overall activity, each may have a most desired feature that beats the others. For example, going to the dance club may be most exciting, but the party at the friend’s house may be the cheapest. Consequently, going to the dinner would result in less excitement and more money spent. Therefore, each alternative that is considered may introduce more lost opportunities and potential benefits.

While choices may provide variety, the subjective utility of the chosen activity could greatly diminish as a result. Thus, the continual increase in choices on the free market could in fact mean less and less enjoyment and more and more suffering.