When I went skiing with my brother for the first time in South Lake Tahoe, he suggested we stop by Jalisco’s Taqueria, a Mexican restaurant he liked. The name “Jalisco” is a mark of quality since the region is known as the soul of Mexican cuisine and the birthplace of tequila.
At first, I did not find this restaurant appealing. The menu stretches across the wall and is hard to follow. It is packed with tacos, tortas, burritos, à la carte items, chips, and sauces. It is not minimal. As research on the paradox of choice suggests, too many options overwhelmed me.
But I noticed that the complex menu did not seem to bother other customers. People ordered confidently as if they already knew what they wanted. In fact, every time I go to the ski resort, I stop by and order the same burritos. It has become a routine for me.
When something becomes a routine, decisions happen automatically. I go to the same restaurant, order the same food, and leave satisfied every time. Routine, like an AI agent, takes over the work of deciding.
Current psychological theory and research affirm the positive affective and motivational consequences of having personal choice. These findings have led to the popular notion that the more choice, the better—that the human ability to manage, and the human desire for, choice is unlimited. Findings from 3 experimental studies starkly challenge this implicit assumption that having more choices is necessarily more intrinsically motivating than having fewer. These experiments, which were conducted in both field and laboratory settings, show that people are more likely to purchase gourmet jams or chocolates or to undertake optional class essay assignments when offered a limited array of 6 choices rather than a more extensive array of 24 or 30 choices. Moreover, participants actually reported greater subsequent satisfaction with their selections and wrote better essays when their original set of options had been limited. Implications for future research are discussed.
