Doing Better but Feeling Worse: The Paradox of Choice

In the United States, we live in a time and a place in which freedom and autonomy are valued above all else and in which expanded opportunities for " self-determination " are regarded as a sign of the psychological well-being of individuals and the moral well-being of the culture. And we take choice as the critical sign that we have freedom and autonomy. It is axiomatic that choice is good, and that more choice is better. This chapter argues that choice, and with it freedom, autonomy, and self-determination, can become excessive, and that when that happens, freedom can be experienced as a kind of misery-inducing tyranny. Unconstrained freedom leads to paralysis. It is self-determination within significant constraints—within " rules " of some sort—that leads to well-being, to optimal functioning. And the task for a future psychology of optimal functioning is to identify which constraints on self-determination are the crucial ones. There is no denying that choice improves the quality of our lives. It enables us to control our destinies, and to come close to getting exactly what we want out of any situation. Choice is essential to autonomy, which is absolutely fundamental to well-being. Healthy people want and need to direct their own lives. Whereas many needs are universal (food, shelter, medical care, social support, education, and so on), much of what we need to flourish is highly individualized. Choice is what enables each person to pursue precisely those objects and activities that best satisfy his or her own preferences within the limits of his or her resources. Any time choice is restricted in some way, there