This Does Not Compute

Perusing the NYT today I came across an op-ed written by Barry Schwartz, professor of psychology at Swarthmore College.  Schwartz is the author of The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less. I have not read this weighty tome myself, but, I perceive by reading the op-ed, that Schwartz is propounding the ideas presented within the book, in a more condensed version, as a method of sales promotion.  The op-ed is entitled “Nation of Second Guesses."

What follows, are some of the arguments presented by Schwartz to bolster his claim that too much choice causes "paralysis, not liberation." His words will be italicized.  Mine will not.

"Sheena Iyengar and Mark Lepper, psychologists at Columbia and Stanford respectively, have shown that as the number of flavors of jam or varieties of chocolate available to shoppers is increased, the likelihood that they will leave the store without buying either jam or chocolate goes up. According to their 2000 study, Ms. Iyengar and Mr. Lepper found that shoppers are 10 times more likely to buy jam when six varieties are on display as when 24 are on the shelf."

While I appreciate the importance of jam or jelly for a slice of toast, and a fine piece of chocolate, I think that studying shoppers’ willingness or unwillingness to puchase one, the other or none, based on varieties available, is hardly indicative that too much choice in the gastronomic department is a paralyzing event from which sound conclusions can be drawn.  I would propose, prior to making such a broad conclusion from the data according to Iyenga’s and Lepper’s findings, that a thorough study of individuals living under current or former socialist regimes be conducted to determine their “paralysis” or “liberation” when confronted by two dozen individual types of jelly, jams or chocolates.

"In a study that Ms. Iyengar, Rachel Elwork of Columbia and I are working on, we found that as the number of job possibilities available to college graduates goes up, applicants’ satisfaction with the job search process goes down. This is particularly true for job seekers whose aim is to get the “best possible” job — while people in this group receive more and better job offers than those who are aiming for “good enough” jobs, they also tend to be less satisfied with their career decisions than their less demanding counterparts. They are also more anxious, pessimistic, disappointed, frustrated and depressed."

In this second example, above, might I suggest, once again, that the researchers broaden their field of study to include more common individuals.  Say, the unskilled, or, blue collar factory folks, or, individuals with families who are unemployed.  Is it, truly, any surprise, at all, that college students are "anxious, pessimistic, disappointed, frustrated and depressed" when confronted with the real world job market?  The majority have been indoctrinated, since grade school, that the world is their oyster and that having that magical piece of paper in their hand, that college diploma, will magically open all doors to them.  Six figure a year jobs and perks galore.  Hooey.  Though, in actuality, the world is their oyster.  Its just that no one has ever informed the college graduates that oysters need to be pried open to obtain their treasure.  Accurate information cannot be gleaned from individuals nannied all their lives.

Schwartz offers a couple of other examples to support his hypothesis but I leave it to you to investigate.  I leave you with the following final paragraph from Schwartz’s op-ed.

"While a life without any freedom of choice would not be worth living, it appears not to be true that more choice inevitably leads to more freedom and greater happiness. Indeed, there may be a point when choice tyrannizes people more than it liberates them. The implication of this news, both for individuals and for government officials, is that sound social policy simply cannot consist of throwing an ever-greater menu of options at the American people."

A more execrable conclusion I cannot imagine.

Posted by on 01/22 at 02:42 PM

  1. Ever heard of a control group, Schwartz?  Stores with more varieties of jam and chocolate are also likely to have many more alternatives to jam and chocolate.  Just because shoppers in those stores are less likely to buy chocolate does not necessarily mean that they are paralyzed by choices.  In fact, they may well be taking advantage of the choices available and buying something not even available in the stores with fewer options.

    Posted by shonk  on  01/22  at  11:19 PM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: Enjoyed While Walking Tonight

Previous entry: "Last Words"

<< Back to main