| ▲ | smath 3 days ago | |||||||
I think both extremes can be suboptimal (no choice and too much choice). See for example ‘the paradox of choice’ - research done by Barry Schwartz and later by Sheena iyengar https://modelthinkers.com/mental-model/paradox-of-choice | ||||||||
| ▲ | yumraj 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
> research done by Barry Schwartz and later by Sheena iyengar Per the article, Sheena Iyengar did the study on 2000 and then ”This study became a central example in Barry Schwartz's 2004 book, The Paradox of Choice.” On a related note, this is one of the main reasons we like Costco. Fewer SKUs means less cognitive load and easier shopping. | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ▲ | refulgentis 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
I'm not sure this imagined scenario, where coffee shops ask where you want your beans from, would apply to this study: "displayed 24 jams in a busy supermarket for tasting...60% of customers stop[ped and tasted], 3% [made] a purchase."..."Next, 6 jam jars....[40% stopped, less than 60%], but...purchases went up [from 3%] to 30%." It reeks of the worst sins of early-TED-era social psychology experiments: tons of obvious confounders. For instance, 24 samples at a table that was 50% busier means I'm thinking I'll come back and wrap up my tryout next week or whenever: it's very busy and I can't afford 15 minutes to sit around trying to maintain tasting notes on something I didn't have intent to buy anyway -- if I did, I wouldn't be sampling! It also means less 1:1 salesmanship contact with the purveyor of samples, and 4x of much investment needed on their part. | ||||||||
| ||||||||