![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.smartinsights.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/04\/choice.png\")
Let us take you back to the grand old days of grocery shopping, when butter came weighed out in a scoop, the grocer knew your children\u2019s names and your favourite cut of beef, and a brand was something you applied to a cow\u2019s bum (not too different to shopping in Lidl today, one might imagine).<\/p>\n
Limited choice made shopping a simpler experience in those days ('You can have any colour as long as it's black'), but surely the huge array of brands, products and quantities available in today\u2019s supermarkets make shopping a more satisfying experience? After all, what brunette with frizzy hair and split ends could argue against a shampoo product made specifically to meet her needs?<\/p>\n
However, as previously demonstrated in our series of articles on digital psychology, the obvious answer isn\u2019t always the right one when it comes to human behaviour. Excessive choice has been shown in numerous studies to result in consumer dissatisfaction, due to our limited capacity for processing information. This leads us to adopt sub-optimal heuristics (rules of thumb) for decision-making, which may ultimately lead to demotivation and lack of action at the point of purchase, a lack of motivation in task completion, reduced task performance, dissatisfaction and post-choice regret.<\/p>\n
These negative reactions to a seemingly positive scenario (an abundance of choice) have been termed by renowned American psychologist, Barry Schwartz, as a 'Paradox of choice' (check out his fascinating TED talk here<\/a><\/span>).<\/p>\n In this post, we will investigate how this paradox was first discovered, how it affects ecommerce retailers, and how the paradox\u2019s effects can be mitigated.<\/p>\n When does too much choice occur, and is this \u2018too-much-choice\u2019 effect reflected online as well as in offline consumer environments?<\/strong><\/p>\n If, as Barry Schwartz in his \u2018Tyranny of Choice<\/a><\/span>\u2019 paper states, 'As the number of choices we face increase, the psychological benefits we derive start to level off\u2026 Some of the negative effects of choice\u2026 begin to appear and rather than level off, they accelerate. (Schwartz, 2004)', where is that point?<\/p>\n This question was first addressed in 1956 (in an offline context) by the wonderfully verbose George Miller (whose CV reads like an academic prospectus for the world\u2019s greatest research institutions, having taught at Oxford, Harvard, MIT and Princeton).<\/p>\n Miller\u2019s paper entitled 'The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information<\/a><\/span>\u2019, discussed findings from a number of experiments on information processing capacity limits in humans across several sensory elements.<\/p>\n His research concludes that the capacity to process \u2018bits\u2019 of information in humans was at, or around the 6-7 mark, although there is slight variation dependent upon the context. Miller refers to amounts over this as \u2018information overload\u2019.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Working in parallel to Miller at Carnegie Mellon University, Herbert Simon was developing the concept of \u2018satisficers\u2019 and \u2018maximisers\u2019<\/a> as a means of categorising human\u2019s approach to choice stimulus.<\/p>\n Simon points out that humans are incapable of fully processing overwhelming amounts of information and that some, which he termed satisficers (satisfaction through sacrifice = satisficing), adopt heuristics to deal with this. These satisficers decide upon an acceptable level across attributes, choose the first option passing that acceptance threshold, and stop searching.<\/p>\n Other humans (maximisers), regardless of innate limits, strive to \u2018find the best\u2019, seeking to consider all possible options, in an impossible task, before making a choice (maximising).<\/p>\n Borrowing the terms \u2018maximisers\u2019 and \u2018satisficers\u2019 from Simon, Schwartz later categorized thousands of people as either maximisers or satisficers using a \u2018maximisation scale\u2019.<\/p>\n Schwartz claims maximisers are less satisfied and more regretful post-decision and that more choice is worse than fewer for them. \u2018Maximisers\u2019 are unable to cope with being unable to evaluate all options and deal with the opportunity costs of \u2018loss of alternatives\u2019. Furthermore, the more options there are, the higher the search costs in terms of time (and arguably money (loss of time)).<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n To demonstrate these principles in action, let\u2019s look to the world of gourmet chocolates, via Iyengar & Lepper\u2019s 2000 study of demotivation through excess choice<\/a>. In this psychological study (masked as a market research piece to avoid biasing the results), students from Columbia University were presented with a selection of either 6 or 30 luxury chocolates to evaluate.<\/p>\n The students presented with the lower quantity amount consistently rated their chocolates higher, and as an extra twist to the tale, when offered chocolate in lieu of financial remuneration, the students evaluating the limited choice of chocolates were four times more likely to accept the \u2018chocolate money\u2019 as payment.<\/p>\n A more contemporary study, conducted by this article\u2019s joint author, Dawn Anderson, of Move It Marketing, surveyed 100 participants, aiming to qualify the \u2018magic number\u2019 for customer choice, originally suggested by Miller.<\/p>\n The study hypothesized that respondents would prefer fewer options in a shop or supermarket environment, but would choose more options when in an online environment, due to the advanced range of filters that are available online. The study also explores the effect of single option availability on buyer satisfaction.<\/p>\n Respondents were asked a series of multiple-choice questions, one of which contained images of jam assortments (designed to partially replicate a similar \u2018Jam Study\u2019<\/a> carried out by Iyengar and Lepper in 2000.), boolean option questions, and one free numerical entry text question.<\/p>\n The study found that overall, participants had no aversion to a single option display and that 6 jams proved the preferred assortment size (see figure 1). As the assortment size increased, a clear pattern emerged, with popularity inversely decreasing. Whilst participants claimed to not find comparing large selections online either more comfortable or easier than offline, further answers to questions did not correspond with this.<\/p>\n If you\u2019d like a full copy of Dawn\u2019s research, please drop her a line. Contact details are available at the end of this post.<\/p>\n These findings suggest that our human brains, both off and online, just haven\u2019t evolved to deal with choice; understandable, when we consider that supermarkets have only been in existence for a few decades, compared to the hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution that relied on the \u201cI\u2019ll take what I can get\u201d method employed by hunter gatherers.<\/p>\n Excess choice ultimately leads to anxiety, and the brain begins to focus not on what it has, but instead on what it doesn\u2019t have. The greater the sacrifice, the more dissatisfaction is felt.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n In ecommerce, this dissatisfaction is amplified thanks to the use of endless aisles. In the high street, even the largest of stores display finite stock due to limitations on floor space, but virtual space is infinite, and as such, when a user searches for \u00a0'dresses' on Amazon, they are accosted with 853,694 separate options.<\/p>\n So, as responsible digital marketers, how can we alleviate our customer\u2019s anxiety, and increase their product satisfaction by reducing choice?<\/p>\n Having looked to Amazon for the problem, let\u2019s take another look for the solution. Through necessity, Amazon have embarked on an increasingly granular approach to product filtering, allowing users to layer filter upon filter to reduce the overwhelming product range that they are initially exposed to.<\/p>\n Amazon also make use of \u2018smart\u2019 filters, which are category specific, adapting as user\u2019s search for different products. Let\u2019s take a search for 'child seats\u2019 as an example. Gone are the colour and size filters offered to dress buyers, to be replaced by seat weight restrictions and child seat safety features.<\/p>\n If the \u2018too much choice\u2019 phenomenon occurs as a result of complexity rather than mere volume then marketers may need to consider how best to assist the consumer in choosing, via categorisation, product tagging and in-site search.<\/p>\n Homemade goods retailer, Etsy combines these three elements to great effect, resulting in a superior user experience that enhances both browsing, buying and post purchase satisfaction.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Alas, Etsy fails to capitalise on these really useful filters (we particularly like the free form tags) as there is no way to layer them \u2013 meaning that even the most obscure tags (\u201cnative American girl\u201d anyone?) still return an unusable number of results, that cannot then be sub-filtered.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is where House of Fraser\u2019s UX really shines. Their filters can be layered on top of each other, to quickly and efficiently reduce the number of options presented to the consumer.<\/p>\n House of Fraser\u2019s filters are clearly displayed at the top of the results page, and can be added\/removed ad hock.<\/p>\n By quickly reducing the number of options available into bite size chunks, House of Fraser are reducing consumer anxiety, and enhancing the online experience; and all this achieved by a retailer that sells a complex product range, with everything from luxury women\u2019s apparel to food blenders available online.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Now it\u2019s your turn to reduce your website user\u2019s choices online. Less really is more when it comes to your customer\u2019s satisfaction.<\/p>\n This is the third post in our series by Andrew on applying psychology to improve digital experiences and campaigns. See Andrew's first post on digital psychology - using reciprocity to trigger customer loyalty<\/a> and second post on using confirmation bias to generate increased retention and spend<\/a>. If you would like to find out more on the subject, feel free to drop Andrew and team a line, or watch their video on digital psychology.<\/a><\/p>\n Choice is a good thing, right? Let us take you back to the grand old days of grocery shopping, when butter came weighed out in a scoop, the grocer knew your children\u2019s names and your favourite cut of beef, and …..<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":96,"featured_media":48043,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_glsr_average":0,"_glsr_ranking":0,"_glsr_reviews":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[385],"tags":[],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nGeorge Miller's Experiments on information processing<\/h4>\n
Herbert Simon's views of 'Maximisers' and 'Satisficers'<\/h4>\n
Applying Psychology to a chocolate test<\/h3>\n
Study's hypothesis<\/h4>\n
Results of the study<\/h4>\n
Figure 1 \u2013 when asked how many options participants would prefer to choose from<\/h5>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.smartinsights.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/04\/Results.png\")
<\/p>\nReviewing how ecommerce companies are handling consumer choice<\/h3>\n
How does it work with Amazon?<\/h4>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.smartinsights.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/04\/dress-search.png\")
<\/p>\nProduct filtering is key<\/h4>\n
Etsy's strategy for managing consumer choice<\/h4>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.smartinsights.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/04\/Etsy1.png\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.smartinsights.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/04\/Etsy2.png\")
<\/p>\nHouse of Fraser's UX<\/h4>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.smartinsights.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/04\/filter-combinations.png\")
<\/p>\n\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/m.c.lnkd.licdn.com\/mpr\/mpr\/shrink_200_200\/p\/1\/005\/085\/174\/0a5013b.jpg\")
Thanks to Andrew Nicholson<\/a>\u00a0and Dawn Anderson<\/a> for sharing their advice. Dawn is\u00a0a Digital Marketing Consultant from Move It Marketing<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Andrew is the founder of digital psychology and marketing consultancy, The Guku.<\/a> You can follow Andrew on Twitter<\/a>,\u00a0connect on LinkedIn<\/a>\u00a0or follow Dawn on Twitter<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"