Reducing Choice Overload Without Reducing Choices

Previous studies have demonstrated that a multitude of options can lead to choice overload, reducing decision quality. Through controlled experiments, we examine sequential choice architectures that enable the choice set to remain large while potentially reducing the effect of choice overload. A specific tournament-style architecture achieves this goal. An alternate architecture in which subjects compare each subset of options to the most preferred option encountered thus far fails to improve performance due to the status quo bias. Subject preferences over different choice architectures are negatively correlated with performance, suggesting that providing choice over architectures might reduce the quality of decisions.

[1]  Y. Hanoch,et al.  Aging and choice: Applications to Medicare Part D , 2009, Judgment and Decision Making.

[2]  Stacey Wood,et al.  Choosing the right medicare prescription drug plan: the effect of age, strategy selection, and choice set size. , 2011, Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association.

[3]  Joseph T. McGuire,et al.  Decision making and the avoidance of cognitive demand. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[4]  R. Thaler,et al.  Libertarian Paternalism is Not an Oxymoron , 2003 .

[5]  H. Simon,et al.  Rational choice and the structure of the environment. , 1956, Psychological review.

[6]  D. McFadden.  Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior , 1972 .

[7]  B. Schwartz,et al.  Doing Better but Feeling Worse , 2006, Psychological science.

[8]  N. Aplin,et al.  Search and Satisficing By A , 2010 .

[9]  Chris Arney.  Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness , 2015 .

[10]  Mikhael Shor,et al.  Age Effects and Heuristics in Decision Making , 2010, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[11]  Mikhael Shor,et al.  Decision-making Strategies and Performance among Seniors. , 2012, Journal of economic behavior & organization.

[12]  Gur Huberman,et al.  How Much Choice is Too Much?: Contributions to 401(k) Retirement Plans , 2003 .

[13]  R. Thaler,et al.  Libertarian Paternalism , 2019, Encyclopedia of Law and Economics.

[14]  Paola Manzini,et al.  Sequentially Rationalizable Choice , 2007 .

[15]  Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher,et al.  The benefits of discussing adjuvant therapies one at a time instead of all at once , 2011, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[16]  Julie R. Agnew,et al.  Portfolio Choice and Trading in a Large 401(k) Plan , 2003 .

[17]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  The adaptive decision maker , 1993 .

[18]  Gregory B. Northcraft,et al.  Organizational Behavior: A Management Challenge , 1990 .

[19]  E. Feigenbaum.  Simon, Herbert A. , 2006 .

[20]  M. Lepper,et al.  The Construction of Preference: When Choice Is Demotivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing? , 2006 .

[21]  D. Redelmeier,et al.  Medical decision making in situations that offer multiple alternatives. , 1995, JAMA.

[22]  Arthur Schram,et al.  How individuals choose health insurance : an experimental analysis , 2011 .

[23]  B. Schwartz.  The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less , 2004 .

[24]  G. Loewenstein,et al.  Diversification bias: Explaining the discrepancy in variety seeking between combined and separated choices , 1995 .

[25]  Todd Eric Roswarski,et al.  Supervision of Students May Protect Academic Physicians from Cognitive Bias: A Study of Decision Making and Multiple Treatment Alternatives in Medicine , 2006, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[26]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias , 1991 .