Conclusion
The Psychology of Choice: How Too Many Options Lead to Decision Fatigue and Reduced Satisfaction
In negotiations, generating a wide range of options is often seen as the key to finding the best solution. Inspired by negotiation classics like Fisher and Ury’s Getting to Yes, many negotiators believe that brainstorming as many alternatives as possible will lead to better outcomes. However, this research challenges that assumption by highlighting the hidden pitfalls of having too many choices.
This study set out to understand two main aspects: how an abundance of options can impact a negotiator's decision-making and how it affects satisfaction after the negotiation is over. Through a multi-theoretical approach, the findings reveal that generating too many options can actually lead to poorer choices. The number of options and how they are presented can subtly influence decisions, often resulting in less optimal outcomes and reduced satisfaction.
While the research acknowledges the value of creating multiple options, it also cautions negotiators to be mindful of cognitive biases and behavioral tendencies when faced with numerous choices. Sometimes, having more options can be as risky as having none at all. The key takeaway is that the process of generating options should be strategic and measured, rather than overwhelming or indiscriminate.
Simulated Negotiation Experiments Supporting Behavioral Insights
1. Chris Guthrie’s Experiments on Option Generation
Chris Guthrie, a professor in dispute resolution, conducted behavioral psychology experiments on decision-making. In one experiment, participants negotiated the purchase of a car. Guthrie found that when participants were presented with additional irrelevant options, they devalued the initial option (a Toyota Corolla), even when the extra options provided no new information. The mere presence of more choices led to lower valuations for the Corolla by 12.8%.
In another experiment, Guthrie demonstrated how irrelevant options could dramatically reverse preferences. When an inferior third option was introduced in a negotiation scenario about a disputed painting, participants significantly changed their preferences, favoring an option they would not have chosen otherwise.
These findings are consistent with psychological concepts like "contrast effects" and "extremeness aversion," showing that negotiators, much like consumers, are susceptible to biases that can influence their decisions in non-normative ways.
2. Charles Naquin on Negotiator Satisfaction
Charles Naquin's research highlights the importance of limiting negotiable issues to enhance negotiator satisfaction. While traditional negotiation advice suggests maximizing negotiable issues to increase integrative potential, Naquin’s findings reveal that fewer, more manageable issues can lead to more satisfactory outcomes for negotiators. This nuanced understanding is crucial for applying psychological insights to negotiation strategy.
3. Hillary Anger Elfenbein and Jared Curhan on Negotiator Values
Research by Hillary Anger Elfenbein and Jared Curhan explores what negotiators value most during negotiations. Their findings reveal that while economic outcomes are important, subjective factors such as relationships, fairness, listening, and maintaining positive feelings are equally significant. This further supports the idea that psychological and emotional considerations are vital to understanding negotiation dynamics.
In conclusion, while brainstorming and generating multiple options is a widely endorsed strategy, it is important to recognize the potential downsides. The psychology of choice shows that too many options can lead to decision fatigue, reduced quality of choices, and lower satisfaction. Negotiators should aim to balance the quantity and quality of options to enhance decision-making and achieve more satisfying negotiation outcomes.
REFERENCES
1. Zartman, William. "Negotiation as a Joint Decision-Making Process." Journal of Conflict Resolution 21, no. 4 (1977): 619-638.
2. Busemeyer, Jerome R., and Amnon Rapoport. "Psychological Models of Deferred Decision Making." Journal of Mathematical Psychology 32, no. 2 (1988): 91-134.
3. Guthrie, Chris. "Panacea or Pandora's Box: The Costs of Options in Negotiation." Dispute Resolution Journal 57, no. 1 (2002): 29-35.
4. Daicoff, Susan. "Lawyer, Know Thyself: A Review of Empirical Research on Attorney Attributes Bearing on Professionalism." American University Law Review 46 (1996): 1337-1427.
5. Guthrie, Chris. "The Lawyer's Philosophical Map and the Disputant's Perceptual Map: Impediments to Facilitate Mediation and Lawyering." Harvard Negotiation Law Review 6 (2001): 145-186.
6. Naquin, Charles E. "The Agony of Opportunity in Negotiation: Number of Negotiable Issues and Feelings of Satisfaction." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 91, no. 2 (2003): 180-191.
7. Curhan, Jared R., Hillary Anger Elfenbein, and Heng Xu. "What Do People Value When They Negotiate? Mapping the Domain of Subjective Value in Negotiation." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 91, no. 3 (2006): 493-512.
8. Anger Elfenbein, Hillary, and Jared R. Curhan. "The Effects of Subjective Value on Future Consequences: Implications for Negotiation Strategies." In The Psychology of Negotiations in the 21st Century Workplace: New Challenges and New Solutions, edited by Barry Goldman and Debra L. Shapiro, 117-144. New York: Routledge, 2012.
