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.