Written by: Vivek Tewari
The paradox of choice is well-researched and documented; I am referring to the idea that having more options doesn’t necessarily make someone overall happier due to the increased number of opportunities to regret the choice they made. When I searched this topic on Google, the first thing I came across was an article from Harvard Health titled “Having fewer choices can promote happiness” (Harvard Health, 2024). Scrolling further, the articles and literature I found echoed the same idea: fewer choices make people happier. My understanding of this paradox is as I explained in the first sentence: that more options don’t necessarily make someone overall happier. There is an important distinction to be made between that, and outright saying that fewer options make people happier. This distinction is what piqued my interest.
With further research, I came across data that appeared to show a negative correlation between the number of options and happiness in different situations and contexts, with one study in particular looking at the purchasing habits of Jam customers (Iyengar & Lepper, 2000). This is used to support the argument that fewer choices lead to more happiness. I am not questioning this data or how, in some individualized contexts, this claim’s validity. However, I think this claim is a bit naive in a sense, and I think in practicality, it doesn’t hold up in many scenarios. In the Harvard Health article, the section titled “Tips for simplifying choices” particularly indicated to me that this (and similar articles) are actively trying to convince people to live by this claim and limit their choices in their daily lives. I reference this idea of a “middle ground” because “many” and “few” with regards to a number of choices are general terms, and the argument behind this paradox of choice isn’t for people to limit choices to just one in every facet of life. It is making the argument that, in general, there are more options to choose from than are optimal for overall happiness in a majority of contexts. This is very possible, as it seems in many instances that more options overall are becoming available. However, I theorize that there is a bias in this research towards having “fewer” choices simply because this paradox contradicts the “general idea” that seems to be more of an assumption that having more options makes people happier. I take issue with this because even if this “general idea” is an opinion that many people hold, it appears to disregard the scenarios in which this opinion holds true. I figure it’ll be a good idea to break this down into an example.
One of the most common examples I’ve seen referenced when describing this paradox is that of ice cream flavors: Do more ice cream flavors make people happier with their decision? The general idea is that, at some point, too many choices lead to dissatisfaction (as a result of being overwhelmed). This point, however, is arbitrary and will vary from person to person. If the options are Vanilla and Chocolate, I may be less happy with my decision than if they were Vanilla, Chocolate, and Strawberry, especially if I prefer Strawberry. However, I might be even less happy if there are, say, thirty-one interesting flavors (shoutout Baskin-Robbins) to choose from than the simple three. So where does this middle ground exist? It should be no surprise that it will be different for everyone. In the scenario I outlined, it may be that a choice between six flavors would make me happiest with my decision. Or four. Or twenty-five. One thing I would say, though, is that the difference between how much I prefer certain flavors would play a part. If there were Dulce de Leche, Vanilla, and Chocolate, I would pick Dulce de Leche (my favorite flavor) and walk away without feeling like I missed out on anything, whereas if there were twenty-five flavors, including Blue Moon (my second favorite flavor) and Dulce de Leche, I’m not sure I could say the same. Now, with more flavors comes more opportunity cost (e.g., by choosing Dulce de Leche, I am giving up the opportunity to have Blue Moon), but it also comes with the possibility of something as great as Dulce de Leche. Realistically, no ice cream place that has Dulce de Leche as an option is serving anything less than eight flavors, so even though the opportunity cost of having it at an ice cream place with many flavors may be higher, I wouldn’t get to enjoy my favorite ice cream at a basic place with, say, five flavors.
This may seem complicated as an example, but what I am getting at is that while having many options can raise the opportunity cost (e.g., what if I had that flavor?), it can also lead to an excellent option, making this a double-edged sword. For me, the greatest satisfaction comes when the opportunity cost is the lowest. In the case of ice cream, if my options are Dulce de Leche and Rum Raisin, I would derive the most satisfaction because I’m effectively choosing between my favorite and least favorite flavors; it’s a no-brainer, and there’s no “FOMO” feeling in the back of my head while I’m enjoying my ice cream. This idea of minimizing opportunity cost is incredibly prevalent in economic settings, yet it appears generally disregarded in reference to the paradox of choice. The best “middle ground” will differ for everyone: for some, it will lie where the opportunity cost is the lowest (and that will be different for different people), while for others it will rely more on overall preference. Keep in mind that some feel more strongly than others when it comes to that feeling of missing out. When I talk about reducing opportunity cost, that is inclusive of how strongly people feel about the “next best alternative”. So, even if my 2nd favorite option is available, I still think I’d be happiest going to that shop and picking my favorite option than going to a different shop outright with neither of those options because I personally don’t get that “I missed out” feeling as strongly as some others.
Everyone is different, and every set of choices in life has its own context. I won’t leave you with “Tips for simplifying choices”, but a recommendation to try changing the number of choices you face in your daily life in all areas, and to frame yourself as an outsider looking in and observe the satisfaction you gain/miss out on from these changes. Mess around with it, you may lean towards more choices in some instances, and fewer in others, but this can help you learn what you naturally lean towards to gain the most satisfaction. At least at the very worst, messing around with this idea shouldn’t hurt you. And if it does, I am not liable; this is not legal advice, I warned you.
References
“Having Fewer Choices Can Promote Happiness.” Harvard Health, 06 Jan. 2024,
https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthbeat/having-fewer-choices-can-promote-happiness.
Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: can one desire too much of
a good thing?. Journal of personality and social psychology, 79(6), 995–1006. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.79.6.995
Royalty-Free photo: Variety flavor of ice cream | PickPik. (2025). Pickpik.com.
https://www.pickpik.com/ice-cream-ice-cream-parlor-dessert-ice-cold-sweet-45671