More choice usually means a better chance of finding a suitable option, yet it can sometimes create “choice overload”. Comparison becomes costly, people may defer deciding, feel less confident, or keep thinking about rejected alternatives afterwards. The crucial issue is not the number of options alone, but how the set fits the chooser's goal.
Imagine a shelf holding sixty similar jams. If you already want sugar-free raspberry, the larger range may help. If your preferences are unclear and every jar differs in sweetness, price, origin and ingredients, careful comparison quickly becomes demanding. Walking away need not mean a fear of choosing; the cost of further search may simply have exceeded its expected benefit.
The evidence does not support a simple claim that more is always worse. A 2010 meta-analysis found that the average adverse effect of assortment size was close to zero, while results varied greatly between studies. A 2015 review and meta-analysis indicated that overload is more likely when preferences are uncertain, the task is difficult, the options are complex, and a definite choice must be made. The effect is conditional, so one shopping experiment cannot settle every life decision.
Choice overload also differs from decision fatigue. The former mainly concerns the structure of one choice set; the latter concerns a state that may follow a series of decisions. A useful response is not to reduce every assortment, but to clarify the important criteria, remove irrelevant differences, and only then decide whether a broader search is worthwhile.
https://doi.org/10.1086/651235
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.08.002
Discover more from Geoffrey Chen
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.