|
| |
Choice and Its Discontents: Challenges for the New Millennium
From: Columbia University
| By:
Sheena S. Iyengar |
EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION |
America is pro-choice. Americans revel in their ability to choose who has power, what they eat, what they buy and how they lead our lives. The idea of having the ability to choose is seen as an unquestionably positive force in Western societies.
But that doesn't necessarily hold true across cultures, and for companies doing business around the world the different cultural views of choice must be taken into account. Even in the West, extensive choice does not necessarily make one happier, more satisfied or more motivated to purchase products. In this article, Professor Sheena S. Iyengar of Columbia Business School shows how both workers and consumers respond to the choices presented to them. |
"Freedom is the right to choose: the right to create for oneself the alternatives of choice. Without the possibility of choice, and the exercise of choice, a man is not a man but a member, an instrument, a thing."
(Attributed to Thomas Jefferson, circa 1795) |
 rom the beginning of our nation's history, the concept of "choice" has been glorified. "Liberty," after all, is enshrined subordinate only to "life" itself in our Declaration of Independence. Even today, the glorification of "choice" permeates many aspects of American life--from the plethora of options available within our local grocery stores, where there are often aisles devoted solely to different types of potato chips or soft drinks, to the use of choice, or more specifically "pro-choice," as a persuasive device in current political debate. In our day-to-day lives, the choices we make may range from the trivial, such as what to eat and what to wear, to the consequential, such as what career to undertake and whom to marry. Inherent in all of these practices is the belief that choice is both desirable and powerful. |
Indeed, the glorification of choice is self-evident, even in the disciplines of economics, political science, psychology, management and marketing, to name just a few. In general, academic research and theory has supported our beliefs about choice by repeatedly demonstrating across many domains of inquiry that the provision of choice enhances human motivation, which in turn can be linked to numerous beneficial consequences. |
In particular, for many decades American psychologists have shown the provision of choice to produce numerous psychological benefits, hypothesized to occur as a result of increased levels of perceived control and intrinsic motivation. According to this research, when individuals are given a choice their feelings of self-determination, their experience of intrinsic motivation and often their actual task performance are significantly increased. Conversely, the absence or removal of a choice has been shown to have detrimental effects on human motivation, performance and even health status. |
In Western cultures, at least, these positive effects of choice seem ubiquitous. They can be seen in children during the preschool and elementary school years and among the institutionalized elderly, as well as with college students. Specifically, educational research has shown that the mere provision of trivial choices, such as what color pen to use when completing their homework assignments and in what order to do their math problems, can actually have powerful beneficial consequences on both the children's interests in their schoolwork and on their actual learning of their school material. |
Similarly, the benefits of choice have been observed even in circumstances in which the choice itself seems trivial, incidental or entirely illusory. For instance, health officials discovered that if elderly patients in a nursing home are given a choice of when to watch a movie, such perceptions of choice and personal control actually improved their health and increased their life span by approximately 18 months. |
Does choice motivate?
The belief that choice is inherently motivating has also been the basis for myriad organizational theories and practices. The widely regarded theories of participative management and individual goal setting, for example, assume that the provision of choice enhances employee productivity, satisfaction and performance. Common managerial wisdom in the West, then, encourages the promotion of employee autonomy and the provision of work-related choices as ways to enhance employee satisfaction and productivity. |
Similarly, the mechanisms presumed to underlie the postulated benefits of choice do not appear to be mysterious. Clearly, we assume that different individuals will have different personal preferences; and certainly, the more choices that are available, the more likely it is that everybody will be able to find and to select alternatives that best match their personal preferences. In addition, we believe that people who have been offered a choice should feel a sense of autonomy, control and empowerment. |
But are these principles truly as self-evident, or as universal, as they might first appear to us North Americans? So ingrained is our assumption that people will find choice intrinsically motivating that psychologists and organizational researchers alike have rarely paused to examine the more general applicability of these findings. Despite the plethora of research that illustrates the beneficial consequences of choice, researchers have rarely examined the possibility that choice may not always be rewarding and that the absence of choice may not always be dysfunctional. |
As the new millennium approaches, and as organizations become increasingly more globalized and competitive, it is becoming vital for business leaders to have a more comprehensive understanding of what really motivates people both at home and in different parts of the world. In my research with global and domestic organizations, my research associates and I have been investigating circumstances in which we find that people actually prefer to have their choices restricted or entirely removed. |
Choice and culture
One recent and highly influential cultural analysis presented by Markus and Kitayama implies that preferences for, and benefits of, choice might well vary across different cultural contexts. In particular, Markus and Kitayama have suggested that whereas personal agency is an essential element of the self-identities of American individualists, it may be considerably less relevant to the self-worth of members of more collectivistic cultures, characteristic of Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and elsewhere. If so, then the links between the provision of choice and job satisfaction, motivation and performance may prove less universal and more particularly relevant for North Americans and Western Europeans. |
Westerners, Markus and Kitayama suggest, possess a self-identity that is fundamentally independent. Such individuals will strive for independence, seek a sense of individual autonomy and desire to express their personal preferences in order to establish their uniqueness within their environments. For Americans, therefore, making a choice provides an opportunity to display one's preferences, and consequently to express one's internal attributes, to assert one's autonomy and to fulfill the goal of being unique. For Americans, individual choice and personal autonomy may be deeply intertwined with their sense of identity. |
The strength of this link between the expression of choice and the concept of self for many Americans can be easily illustrated with a familiar example. John goes out to dinner with friends. As he peruses the menu, he spots a favorite dish that sounds tempting--perhaps the grilled prawns. To his dismay, however, he listens as the two companions sitting across from him order this same item. Suddenly, John faces what we might call a "dilemma of individuality," and must decide whether to go ahead and order the same dish, despite the fact that others at the table have already done so. Even if he resists the temptation to change his planned order, he may still find himself feeling obliged to offer some prefatory apology or explanation for his decision in order to show that he is not merely a conformist (e.g., "Gosh, I hate to be such a copycat ...," or "You know, I too was planning to order that dish all along"). |
By contrast, consider a different cultural context in which the members possess a more interdependent model of the self. As opposed to American individualists, Markus and Kitayama theorize, members of more interdependent cultures (i.e., most non-Western cultures, notably those in Asia) strive for interconnectedness and belongingness with their social in-groups by seeking to maintain harmony and endeavoring to fulfill the wishes of those in-groups. |
For such persons, the exercise of personal choice may have considerably less value. Indeed, in some situations the exercise of personal choice might even pose a threat to individuals whose personal preferences could prove at variance with those of their reference group. Interdependent selves, therefore, might actually prefer to accept choices expressed by others--if doing so enables them to fulfill the superordinate cultural goal of group harmony and belongingness. |
Thus, in the more interdependent cultures that comprise most of the non-Western world, the apparent dilemma facing our hypothetical dinner in the scenario above is likely to seem ludicrous. Surely, the discovery of shared preferences should be, if anything, a source of pleasure, as well as an opportunity to display one's identification with the group. In most Eastern countries, sharing a common menu would be standard procedure when dining out, and it would instead be the assertion of some distinctive individual preference that would require some explanation or apology. If Yuko disliked the shellfish that was being served, her "dilemma of belongingness" would be whether just to pick politely at a dinner she could not enjoy or to express her distinctiveness and potentially threaten the harmony of the group around the table. |
Choice as a motivator in Asia and America
When I initially began my research on choice and motivation, I compared the attitudes of Japanese and Chinese factory workers to those of Anglo-Americans in the United States. To begin with, we found that whereas it is very difficult to have a conversation about choice with the Asians, it was also very difficult to have a conversation about the need for harmony with Americans. We found there to be dramatic cultural differences in the emphasis and reverence toward these terms. |
Both American and Japanese factory employees were asked to catalogue the choices they had made during a normal workday and to rate how important each choice was to them. American employees reported themselves as having made nearly 50 percent more choices than their Asian counterparts. In addition, the Americans gave significantly higher ratings of importance to their choices than did the Asians. Moreover, these employees were also asked to list occasions on which they would wish not to have a choice. Unlike the Asians, who never once voiced such a sentiment, 30 percent of the Americans said that they could not imagine a single circumstance in which they would prefer not to have a choice. |
Currently, my research with Citigroup is examining the role of choice and other motivating factors, such as money and job security, in employee satisfaction and motivation in 12 different countries, including employees from Asia, Latin America, Europe, Australia and the Middle East. Thus far our findings reveal that, even among employees in consumer branches in the United States, we can observe considerable differences in what motivates employees. While having the ability to choose when to take work breaks and how to complete one's job is predictive of employee satisfaction and performance among Anglo-Americans and African-Americans, it has no relevance to the work satisfaction and performance of Asians and Latin American employees. By contrast, we find that for Asians it is the amount of responsibility they have that predicts their work satisfaction and performance. |
More specific comparisons of Asians and Americans indicate that while Americans perform better and are more satisfied with work activities they have chosen to do, Asians tend to be more satisfied and perform better on tasks that trusted others (e.g., well-regarded managers) have chosen for them. We also find that Asians are motivated by tasks that their entire group of colleagues has decided upon collectively--a work situation that does not appear to be motivating to Americans. |
For centuries, Americans have taken for granted the notion that people will "naturally" prefer to make their own choices and will perceive contexts fostering conformity as aversive. The present findings suggest that this is not always the case. What other false assumptions have we made regarding the act of choosing? In our singular focus on personal autonomy and individual integrity, have we failed to notice other circumstances--perhaps even in our own American culture--in which the provision of choices might not be intrinsically motivating? |
Choice and its limits
Consider a common economic supposition, in our country, that "the more choice, the better." Just as we have assumed the provision of choice to be more desirable than a lack of choice, so too have we assumed that, in general, "more" choice is better than "less"--that the human ability to desire and manage choice is unlimited. Although prior research makes a compelling case regarding the psychological benefits of choice in America, these studies have focused only on the specific question of whether some relatively limited choice among alternatives is more beneficial than no choice at all. Common everyday situations that we regularly encounter as consumers of choice, however, are often not constrained by a limited selection. What happens when the range of alternatives becomes much larger, when the number of options becomes overwhelming and the differences between options become relatively small? |
To explore consumer responses to extensive options, we conducted a field investigation in an upscale grocery store located in Menlo Park, California, named Draegers. On two consecutive Saturdays, a tasting booth for exotic Wilkin and Sons jams was arranged. As consumers passed the tasting booth, they encountered a display with either six or 24 different flavored jams. We observed and calculated the number of people who stopped at the tasting booth as well as the number of people who chose to purchase the jam in question. |
The results are striking. They demonstrate that although extensive choice is initially more enticing than limited choice, limited choice is ultimately more motivating. In fact, 60 percent of the passersby approached the table in the extensive-choice condition, as compared with only 40 percent in the limited-choice condition. However, 30 percent of the consumers who encountered the limited selection actually purchased a jam, whereas only 3 percent of those exposed to the extensive selection made a purchase. |
In subsequent studies we find that people are actually less satisfied with the choices they make if selected from a larger set of options. For instance, the same Godiva chocolate chosen from a set of 30 chocolates is considered to be less delicious than if it is chosen from a set of six. Moreover, we even find that the negative consequences of too much choice extend even beyond the consumer contexts, to work contexts. An examination of individuals completing a task chosen from a larger range of options as compared with a smaller set of options revealed that people perform better at their chosen activities if they have chosen the activity from a smaller range of options. |
Thus, even Americans may not always find the provision of choice to be motivating. Even Americans may not have an infinite capacity to desire and manage the consumption of choices. Currently we are investigating the implications of these findings to investment decisions. |
For centuries in Western civilization, politicians, economists, psychologists and laypersons alike have assumed the desirability of choice, and its affective and motivational benefits, to be a matter of "human nature." Increasingly, however, it appears that choices may be considerably more culturally and contextually specific than previously recognized. |
From Mill to Locke, and Rousseau to Jefferson, "choice" has been hailed as an inalienable human right--an essential human need. But one of the questions we face in the twenty-first century is: What of choice and its discontents? |
|
| |
