The Paradox of Choice

Historically, economists have assumed that giving consumers more choice is a good thing. With more options, the thinking goes, consumers are more likely to find something that makes them happy. Which improves the chances they'll make a purchase. At least, that was the theory.

The Jam Study

In 2000, psychologists Sheena Iyengar and Mark Lepper ran an experiment. They set out a display table in a food market with 24 varieties of gourmet jam and counted how many people sampled the jam, and how many made a purchase. And on another day they did the same thing, but with only six varieties of jam.

As expected, the table with 24 jams was more popular with passers-by, with more people trying samples. But when it came to actually making a purchase, people were ten times more likely to buy from the six varieties than they were from the 24. That came as a huge surprise.

Keep it simple

There is still debate as to why people behaved the way they did. Some even argue that the whole study is dubious, because attempts at reproducing it in other situations have been a bit patchy.

But the result makes intuitive sense. If you have too many choices, what are you going to do?

  1. Spend a lot of time and energy evaluating all options;
  2. Go with the first choice that meets your needs, and risk missing out on something better;
  3. Evaluate all the options superficially, and risk making a mistake; or
  4. Give up because it's too hard.

None of the options is great, so a lot of people pick "give up".

Now the question is, does the Paradox of Choice apply to online dating? When there are so many people to choose from in apps like Tinder and Bumble, are people less likely to make a choice at all? Do they end up swiping left on people who'd they'd happily date if they met in real life?

Maybe, in the world of online dating, less is more.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The benefits of being average

Image
Imagine that attractiveness could be scored from 1 to 10, measuring everything that makes a person attractive: looks, wealth, personality, intelligence, etc. You'd want to be a 10, right? The world would be your oyster: you could date anyone you wanted, and you'd never be lonely. Well, maybe not ... Sexual attraction is driven by our lizard brains, and they don't lower their standards. So if you were a 10, you probably wouldn't be attracted to anyone lower than a 9. But that's not so bad is it? Dating 9's and 10's sounds awesome. The tyranny of the normal distribution The problem is that 9's and 10's are pretty thin on the ground. Many human characteristics follow a normal distribution , a.k.a. a bell curve . Intelligence does. Height does. Weight does. So it's reasonable to assume that attractiveness does too. If that's the case, there are a lot of people rated 4, 5, 6, or 7, but relatively few rated 1, 2, 9, or 10. A quick look around a sho
Read more

Science fiction dating

Image
It's fun to see how science fiction influences real-world technology. Sometimes it simply provides a name for a new concept, such as cyberspace , robot , waldo , and the metaverse . Other times it serves as an inspiration that leads to an actual breakthrough, such as talking computers and direct neural interfaces. Either way, it can point to a possible future. Movies and TV So what does science fiction have to say about dating? Here are some shows where dating played a part. Black Mirror . In the episode Hang the DJ , the characters find themselves in a strange world where they're assigned to random relationships, each with an expiration date.  Spoiler alert.  They're simulated characters in a simulated world, and the simulation runs a thousand times with minor variations to see how often they end up together, thus calculating a compatibility score. As far as dating technology is concerned, this is the gold standard. You know two people are compatible because they were  com
Read more

Assortative mating

Image
The term assortative mating  refers to the tendency for people to partner with someone similar. Similar in terms of things like height, ethnicity, religion, language, education, and socioeconomic background. But how much of this is due to innate preferences, and how much to limited opportunities? An example of innate preferences would be if women prefer men who are taller than them (which appears to be the case). Then tall women would end up with taller men and short men with shorter women, so couples would (on average) tend to be of similar height. But consider a scenario where people's main opportunity to socialize is at a local church. Many people would meet their partners there, who would be of the same religion. In this case their similarity would be due to limited opportunities. They might have an innate preference for — or be neutral to — other religions, but have fewer chances to meet those people. With endless choice, who do we choose? So, what happens in the world of unli
Read more