Chapter Two

The Hidden Power of Simplifying Choices

When it comes to negotiation, generating multiple options is often seen as a key strategy for success. The more choices on the table, the greater the chance that one will reconcile the differing interests of the parties involved. However, a closer look reveals a different reality: too many choices can actually lead to poorer decision-making. This article delves into the psychological complexities of having too many options and how it impacts negotiation outcomes.

 The Vulnerability of Option Generation

The process of generating numerous options is not as beneficial as it might seem. Chris Guthrie, in his work "Panacea or Pandora's Box? The Costs of Options in Negotiation," explains how the assumption that more options lead to better outcomes is flawed. It assumes that negotiators will always make rational decisions when faced with multiple options, carefully assessing and selecting the one with the most value. In reality, however, the presence of multiple options can lead to suboptimal decisions. People often struggle to pick the most valuable choice when there are too many alternatives, leading to what we call the "choice overload trap."

 Guthrie identifies three main pitfalls of option generation: decision aversion, irrational decisions, and negative effects. In this post, we’ll explore the first two, leaving the discussion on negative effects for a later time.

Psychological Consequences of Multiple Options

 When faced with too many choices, negotiators may experience decision aversion, leading to deferral or avoidance. The sheer number of alternatives can create psychological conflict, affecting not only the decision-maker's mental state but also the actual choice they make:

 1. Decision Aversion

 Decision aversion occurs when people defer or avoid making a choice altogether. Amos Tversky and Eldar Shafir describe this phenomenon: “When one option is better than another in all essential respects, there is no conflict and choice is easy. However, when each option has advantages and disadvantages, people often experience conflict that makes choice aversive and compels them to delay decision and seek additional information or options". For example, in a study involving the purchase of a CD player, participants who had more options available to them were more likely to delay their decision than those who had fewer options. Negotiators, too, may defer decisions when overwhelmed by multiple options, potentially missing out on time-sensitive opportunities.

 2. Decision Avoidance

 Another form of decision aversion is decision avoidance, where negotiators refrain from making any choice at all. Studies have shown that reducing the number of options available can increase decision-making. For instance, when the product range at an online grocery store was halved, sales increased by up to eleven percent. This demonstrates that having too many options can be demotivating, pushing negotiators to avoid the decision-making process altogether.

 The famous "Jam Study" by Sheena Iyengar and Mark Lepper also illustrates this phenomenon. Shoppers presented with a large assortment of 24 flavors were less likely to make a purchase than those presented with only six flavors. While more people were attracted to the large assortment, only 3% of them made a purchase, compared to 30% from the smaller assortment group. The researchers concluded that a larger variety tends to favor browsers over buyers.

 3. Irrational Decisions

 Option generation can also lead to irrational decisions that don't align with a negotiator's true preferences. Psychological research shows that people often choose between descriptions of options rather than the options themselves. For instance, the way options are framed can significantly affect decision-making. In one study, participants' preferences shifted when the presentation of unemployment and inflation rates changed, even though the options remained mathematically equivalent.

 Another interesting phenomenon is context-dependent decision-making, where the relative attractiveness of available options can be manipulated. Studies show that adding a decoy option (an alternative that is not meant to be chosen but serves to make another option more appealing) can shift preferences towards the target option.

 Conclusion: Less is More in Negotiation

 The evidence is clear: generating numerous options in negotiation can lead to psychological traps that influence the outcome. Negotiators might defer, avoid, or make irrational decisions due to the overwhelming number of choices. As negotiators, understanding these psychological tendencies is crucial for crafting better strategies and avoiding the pitfalls of choice overload.

 In the next chapter, we’ll explore the psychological consequences of option generation further by examining the subjective outcomes after an agreement is reached. Stay tuned!

REFERENCES

1. Guthrie, Chris. "Panacea or Pandora's Box: The Costs of Options in Negotiation." Iowa Law Review 88 (2002): 601.

2. Fisher, Roger, Danny Ertel, and Roger Fisher. Getting Ready to Negotiate: The Getting to Yes Workbook. New York: Penguin, 1995.

3. Guthrie, Chris. "Option Generation: Be Careful What You Ask For." 2005. 220-227.

4. Irons, David, and Kate Hepburn. "Regret Theory and the Tyranny of Choice." 2007.

5. Tversky, Amos, and Eldar Shafir. "Choice under Conflict: The Dynamics of Deferred Decision." Psychological Science 3.6 (1992): 358-361.

6. Kuksov, Dmitri, and J. Miguel Villas-Boas. "When More Alternatives Lead to Less Choice." Marketing Science 29.3 (2010): 507-524.

7. Boatwright, Peter, and Joseph C. Nunes. "Reducing Assortment: An Attribute-Based Approach." The Journal of Marketing (2001): 50-63.

8. Iyengar, Sheena, and Mark Lepper. "When Choice Is Demotivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing?" 2000.

9. Iyengar, Sheena. The Art of Choosing. New York: Twelve, 2010. Print.

10. Joachimsthaler, Erich, et al. Harvard Business Review on Brand Management. Vol. 4. Harvard Business Press, 1999. Print.

11. Osnos, Evan. "Too Many Choices? Firms Cut Back on New Products." Philadelphia Inquirer 27 (1997). Cited in Iyengar and Lepper, "When Choice Is Demotivating," 2000.

12. Brenner, Lyle, Yuval Rottenstreich, and Sanjay Sood. "Comparison, Grouping, and Preference." Psychological Science 10.3 (1999): 225-229.

13. Tversky, Amos. "Contrasting Rational and Psychological Principles of Choice." In Wise Choices: Decisions, Games, and Negotiations, edited by Richard Zeckhauser, Ralph L. Keeney, and James K. Sebenius, 7-13. Boston: Harvard Business School, 1996. Print.

14. Quattrone, George A., and Amos Tversky. "Causal Versus Diagnostic Contingencies: On Self-Deception and on the Voter's Illusion." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46.2 (1984): 237.

15. Simonson, Itamar, and Amos Tversky. "Choice in Context: Tradeoff Contrast and Extremeness Aversion." Journal of Marketing Research (1992).

16. Huber, Joel, John W. Payne, and Christopher Puto. "Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis." Journal of Consumer Research (1982): 90-98.

17. Simonson, Itamar. "Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects." Journal of Consumer Research (1989): 158-174.

18. Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. "The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice." Behavioral Decision Making. Springer US, 1985, 25-41.

19. Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk." Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society (1979): 263-291. Cited in Guthrie, "Option Generation: Be Careful What You Ask For," 2005.

20. Schwartz, Barry. The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less. New York: Ecco, 2004. Print.

21. Gigerenzer, Gerd, and Daniel G. Goldstein. "Reasoning the Fast and Frugal Way: Models of Bounded Rationality." Psychological Review 103.4 (1996): 650.