The Art of Choosing

The Art of Choosing (2010) by psychologist Sheena Iyengar provides extensive coverage of a host of scientific research about how humans make decisions. It is split into three main topical categories: regarding what information we search for and incorporate in a decision; how we recursively take feedback from the outcomes of our decisions; and how we can intelligently use this knowledge of the self to modify our own decision making. She is most famous for an experiment colloquially known as the “jam experiment,” in which she proved a hypothesis that people who are presented with an arbitrarily increasing number of options of the same type of product become less and less likely to buy anything. She extends similar hypotheses and supported theories about human behavior, elucidating the limits of human agency.

Iyengar states that it is up to the individual to define how much choice he or she needs. Though many people feel that they want to maximize their behavioral freedom, it is not necessarily a good thing to be able to conceive of a huge number of outcomes in a given decision problem. Instead, it is often better to spend energy to find the best data for informing decisions, even when that limits the number of options. This theme of complexity reduction is central to her thesis.

Next, Iyengar explains that the amount of choice one needs is a product of culture and other environmental factors. Yet, when there are countless factors influencing a given decision maker, one generally resorts to the question of how he or she can maximize the amount of choice. For a pervasive example, she points to the United States consumerist economy, where a simple product like toothpaste will have a countless number of versions on display at a store to satisfy people’s desire for maximum choice. Iyengar rejects this pattern, stating that the amount of choice necessary is purely individualized. She gives examples of cultures that promote individual choice, such as Europe and the United States; here, people love feeling that they have total control. In contrast, she views Eastern cultures as more focused on the collective identity, where it is common to have many decisions, such as who one will marry, chosen for oneself by peers or family.



Iyengar cites a study in which children of Asian-American and Anglo-American background were supplied with a toy to play with near their mother. A separate population was allowed to choose a toy and allowed to play independently. The study found that the children of Asian background played for longer when the toy was selected, while the American children played longer when they chose for themselves. In other studies of similar structure, American children tend to learn and excel when given choice, while Asian children have the inverse relationship with the level of supplied choice.

Next, Iyengar argues that some degree of choice is always better than no choice. She says that even the illusion of choice increases happiness in controlled studies. Here, she cites the Whitehall study, which surveyed 10,000 civil servants from Britain. It found that higher-salaried employees were generally healthier despite the increased stress of their jobs. The poor were generally more likely to die of heart disease. The hypothesis for the study is that despite the increased stress of a high paying job, people have more wealth with which to make choices within the constraints given to them. Iyengar also describes a study where nursing home residents were given an activity calendar and told that they were permitted to explore the building. That population fared worse off than the group to whom their agency was phrased differently, as free to do whatever they wanted, even though their agency was essentially the same.

In her final section, Iyengar argues that it can be better for someone else to make one’s decisions as long as he or she has accurate data about it. She provides the example of terminally ill children, whose parents have to decide whether to continue or end life support. If a doctor’s advice and analysis of the specific patient comes before the decision, the parents generally feel better off than the ones who made a decision without gathering professional insight. In another study that simulated the decision process after a child’s terminal diagnosis, the groups who had no opportunity to gather hard data were much less confident and happy with their decisions.



Iyengar concludes by returning to her thesis of complexity reduction. No human is ever totally unconstrained in his or her options; rather, one harbors an illusory set of options based on the data one has consciously and unconsciously gathered. Only by taking reign of the decision-making process can individuals achieve the amount of freedom that best fits their aspirations.