The Tyranny of the Jam Aisle

A shopper stands in a supermarket aisle, holding a jar of jam she will not buy. In front of her are forty-three others. Strawberry with seeds, strawberry without, organic strawberry, low-sugar strawberry, French strawberry preserve in a squat glass jar that costs four times the rest. She picks one up, reads the label, puts it down. She picks up another. After two minutes she walks away with nothing, faintly irritated, unsure why.

This small, ordinary failure is not a character flaw. It is not laziness or indecision in the moral sense. It is closer to arithmetic. Somewhere between the sixth jar and the forty-third, the act of choosing crossed a threshold, and the thing that was supposed to liberate her, the sheer profusion of options, became a kind of weight she could not carry to the register.

We tend to assume that more choice is always better. It is one of the quiet articles of faith underneath modern consumer life: that freedom means options, that options mean happiness, that a shelf with two hundred varieties is more generous than a shelf with five. For half a century, a handful of psychologists and economists have been gently dismantling that assumption. Their conclusion is stranger and more useful than the slogan it replaced. Choice has a cost, the cost is invisible, and past a certain point the cost begins to outweigh the benefit.

The man who counted the cookies

In the early 2000s, a psychologist at Swarthmore College named Barry Schwartz began paying close attention to his local supermarket, the way a naturalist might pay attention to an unfamiliar coral reef. He counted. His store, he reported, stocked 285 varieties of cookies. There were 175 salad dressings, not including the oils and vinegars from which a determined shopper could assemble several hundred more. There were 230 soups, 40 toothpastes, dozens of mustards and pasta shapes and bottled waters ¹.

None of this was sinister. Each addition to the shelf had been a small commercial victory, a manufacturer answering some real or imagined demand. And yet Schwartz noticed that the people moving through these aisles of plenty did not look like the beneficiaries of a triumph. They looked tired. They looked anxious. They deliberated over jam the way an earlier generation might have deliberated over a marriage.

In his 2004 book The Paradox of Choice, Schwartz laid out the argument that would make him, briefly, a fixture of the lecture circuit. Choice, he wrote, is not free. Every option you seriously consider is an option you will eventually reject, and rejection has a psychological price. When the menu is short, the price is trivial. When the menu is enormous, it compounds. The promise of abundance, that you can have exactly what you want, curdles into a quieter and more corrosive message: that if you end up unhappy, it can only be because you chose wrong ².

Schwartz borrowed a phrase, the tyranny of small decisions, to describe the texture of this life. Not the grand, consequential choices we expect to find difficult, but the relentless drip of trivial ones. What to eat, what to watch, which of the fourteen nearly identical phone plans to sign. Each is minor. Together they form a tax on attention that the affluent world pays every waking hour.

Six jars, twenty-four jars

The argument might have remained a clever observation if not for an experiment that gave it teeth. In 2000, Sheena Iyengar of Columbia Business School and Mark Lepper of Stanford published the results of a study so tidy that it has been retold thousands of times, usually badly ³.

The setting was an upscale grocery store in Menlo Park, California. On a table near the entrance, Iyengar and her assistants set out a tasting display of Wilkin & Sons jams. On some days the display held six varieties. On other days it held twenty-four. Shoppers could taste as many as they liked, and anyone who approached received a coupon for a dollar off a jar, redeemable elsewhere in the store. The coupons were coded so the researchers could later see who bought.

The first result was the obvious one. The larger display drew more people. Sixty percent of passing shoppers stopped at the table of twenty-four, against forty percent at the table of six. Abundance, as advertised, attracts.

Then came the turn that made the study famous. Of the shoppers who stopped at the small display, thirty percent went on to buy a jar. Of those who stopped at the large display, only three percent did ³. The big table pulled in more eyes and converted almost none of them. The small table, less alluring, sent ten times as many people home with jam.

The interpretation Iyengar offered was that the larger array had overwhelmed people. Faced with twenty-four roughly equivalent options, shoppers found the comparison so taxing, and the prospect of choosing wrong so live, that the simplest escape was to choose nothing. “Choice overload,” she would later put it, “paralyzes us.” The same pattern, she and others argued, appeared elsewhere. In follow-up work, students offered the chance to write an extra-credit essay were more likely to do so, and wrote better essays, when given six topics rather than thirty ³. The effect seemed to surface in chocolate selections, in speed dating, and, most consequentially, in retirement savings.

The most expensive jam of all

That last domain is where the paradox stops being a parlor curiosity. Iyengar, with Wei Jiang and Gur Huberman, studied the retirement plans of nearly a million American workers across hundreds of employers. The plans varied in how many investment funds they offered. The researchers wanted to know whether more funds meant more participation ⁴.

The answer was the opposite. For every ten additional funds a plan added, participation dropped by around two percentage points. Where employees could pick from only a couple of funds, most enrolled. Where the menu ballooned to dozens, a meaningful fraction simply opted out, forgoing not only the investment but, in many cases, free matching money from their employer ⁴. The cost of standing frozen in the jam aisle was, in this case, retirement savings left on the table. The grocery-store experiment had walked out of the grocery store and into the architecture of people’s financial lives.

What is happening in these moments? The most intuitive culprit is the sheer combinatorics of comparison. When you hold two options in mind, there is one comparison to make. With six, the number of pairwise comparisons rises to fifteen. With twenty-four it leaps to two hundred and seventy-six. The brain does not, of course, dutifully run every pairing, but the felt difficulty of the task scales in something like that punishing way. The space of possibilities outruns the capacity of working memory, and the mind does what minds do when overloaded. It defers. It defaults. It walks away.

Maximizers and the curse of the best

To understand why this is so painful for some people and barely registers for others, it helps to go back further, to a distinction drawn in the 1950s by the economist and polymath Herbert Simon. Simon, who would later win a Nobel Prize, was skeptical of the tidy economic fiction that human beings optimize, that we survey all options and select the one that maximizes our gain. Real people, he argued, do not have the time, information, or mental bandwidth for that. Instead, they engage in what he called satisficing: they set a threshold of acceptability and choose the first option that clears it ⁵.

Schwartz and his colleagues took Simon’s analytical distinction and turned it into a psychological portrait of two kinds of people. The maximizer needs to be sure that every purchase, every decision, is the best it could possibly be. Before buying a sweater, the maximizer must establish that no better sweater exists at a better price within reasonable reach. The satisficer has standards, often high ones, but stops searching the moment those standards are met. Good enough is, for the satisficer, genuinely good enough.

You might expect maximizers to come out ahead. In strictly material terms, they sometimes do. One study found that maximizing job-seekers landed positions with starting salaries about twenty percent higher than satisficers ⁶. They had searched harder and negotiated more, and it showed in the paycheck.

But when Schwartz and his collaborators measured how these same people felt, the picture inverted. Maximizers reported lower life satisfaction, less happiness, more regret, and more depressive symptoms than satisficers ⁷. The job-seekers who won the better salaries also felt worse about the jobs they had won, more anxious, more pessimistic, more haunted by the positions they had not taken. The best objective outcome produced the worst subjective experience. The maximizer pays for excellence in the currency of contentment.

The mechanism is intuitive once you see it. The maximizer’s standard is not a fixed bar but a receding horizon. There is always, in principle, a better option just out of view, and every choice is shadowed by the suspicion that it might have been bettered. The satisficer closes the door and moves on. The maximizer leaves every door ajar, and the draft never stops.

Four ghosts in the room

Schwartz catalogued the specific ways that abundant choice corrodes satisfaction, and they are worth naming, because each one names a feeling most people will recognize.

The first is regret, and its anticipation. The more alternatives there are, the easier it is to imagine that one of them would have been better, and the more vivid that imagined better outcome becomes. With three jobs to choose from, the road not taken is a vague figure. With three hundred, every rejection is a fully rendered ghost.

The second is opportunity cost. The appeal of any option is partly defined by what it lacks relative to the others. When you choose the apartment with the great light, you are also choosing against the one with the second bedroom, and the one near the park, and the one with the lower rent. A wealth of alternatives means a wealth of features you are knowingly giving up, and each of those becomes a small subtraction from the pleasure of what you actually got.

The third is escalation of expectations. When options are scarce, you hope for something adequate. When options are limitless, you begin to expect something perfect, and a world that delivers merely excellent things will leave you, perversely, disappointed.

The fourth, and the heaviest, is self-blame. In a world of few options, a bad outcome can reasonably be blamed on circumstance. There was nothing better available. But in a world of forty-three jams and three hundred funds and infinite scrolling, every disappointing result invites the same accusation. You had every option. You chose this one. Whatever went wrong is, inescapably, your fault. Schwartz argued that this turn toward self-blame, multiplied across countless small decisions, helps explain a cultural rise in anxiety and depression in the very societies most flooded with choice ².

The paradox, paradoxically, is contested

Here the story should pause and complicate itself, because the science did. The paradox of choice became so popular so quickly, repeated in TED talks and business books and management seminars, that it acquired the smooth certainty of folk wisdom. The jam study became shorthand. And then other researchers tried to reproduce the effect, and the ground turned soft.

In 2010, Benjamin Scheibehenne, Rainer Greifeneder, and Peter Todd published a meta-analysis pooling roughly fifty experiments on choice overload, involving thousands of participants ⁸. Their headline finding was deflating. Across the full set of studies, the average effect of having more options on satisfaction or willingness to choose was essentially zero. Some studies found the classic overload effect. Some found the opposite, that more choice helped. Many found nothing at all. Taken together, the grand claim that more choice reliably makes us worse off did not hold.

This was not a refutation so much as a correction of scope. A later and larger meta-analysis by Alexander Chernev and colleagues, published in 2015, reconciled the conflicting results by identifying the conditions under which choice overload actually appears ⁹. It is not a universal law. It is a contingent effect that switches on when several factors line up. It emerges when the options are complex and hard to tell apart, when the decision-maker has no clear prior preference, when the stakes feel high, and when there is time pressure or some other source of difficulty. Strip those conditions away, give people simple options and a clear sense of what they want, and abundance is harmless or even welcome ⁹.

Which is to say: the supermarket jam display, an unfamiliar product, dozens of near-identical options, a shopper with no strong preference and no time to deliberate, was almost perfectly engineered to produce overload. The effect was real. It was simply less universal than the slogan suggested. The enemy was never choice as such. It was a particular architecture of choice, a specific arrangement of difficulty around the act of deciding.

Designing the decision

This reframing turns out to be the most practically useful part of the whole story. If choice overload is not destiny but a product of conditions, then the conditions can be changed. The problem becomes one of design, both by the institutions that present us with options and by the individuals trying to survive them.

The first lever is to limit the field before comparing within it. The misery of the forty-three jams comes from treating all forty-three as live candidates. The skilled chooser narrows the set first, often arbitrarily, to a handful, and only then compares carefully. A rule as crude as “only consider the three best-reviewed options” reclaims most of the benefit of choice while discarding most of the cost.

The second is to adopt, deliberately, the posture of the satisficer. This means deciding in advance what “good enough” looks like and committing to stop the moment something meets that bar, rather than continuing to search for the theoretical best. This is not settling in the defeatist sense. It is recognizing that beyond a certain point, the marginal search for perfection costs more in anxiety and regret than it returns in actual improvement.

The third is to distinguish reversible decisions from irreversible ones, and to spend deliberation accordingly. Most modern choices are reversible. The jam can be returned, the streaming service cancelled, the sweater exchanged. Lavishing maximizer-grade scrutiny on a decision you can undo in a week is a poor allocation of a finite mental budget. Save that intensity for the choices that genuinely cannot be taken back.

Underneath all three lies a temperamental point that Schwartz made, half-joking and entirely serious. “The secret to happiness,” he liked to say, “is low expectations.” Not no expectations, and not the bitter resignation that phrase can suggest. Rather, an honest acknowledgment that a world promising perfection in every aisle is selling something it cannot deliver, and that the people best equipped to be happy in such a world are the ones who have quietly stopped demanding the best of everything.

The shopper who walked away from the jam empty-handed was not failing at the task of choosing. She was, in a sense, responding rationally to an impossible one. The store had handed her two hundred and seventy-six comparisons disguised as a kindness and called it freedom. The deeper freedom, it turns out, is not the right to consider every option. It is the permission to stop, to declare a search complete, to take the good jar home and never wonder about the other forty-two. The aisle will always offer more. The art is in choosing, on purpose, to choose less.

Sources

1. Schwartz, B., The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less, HarperCollins, 2004. — https://www.harpercollins.com/products/the-paradox-of-choice-barry-schwartz
2. Schwartz, B., ‘More Isn’t Always Better,’ Harvard Business Review, 2006. — https://hbr.org/2006/06/more-isnt-always-better
3. Iyengar, S. S. & Lepper, M. R., ‘When Choice Is Demotivating,’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2000. — https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11138768
4. Iyengar, S. S., Huberman, G. & Jiang, W., ‘How Much Choice Is Too Much? Contributions to 401(k) Retirement Plans,’ Pension Research Council, 2004. — https://www.columbia.edu/~ss957/articles/How_Much_Choice_Is_Too_Much.pdf
5. Simon, H. A., ‘Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environment,’ Psychological Review, 1956. — https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1957-01985-001
6. Iyengar, S. S., Wells, R. E. & Schwartz, B., ‘Doing Better but Feeling Worse,’ Psychological Science, 2006. — https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16466418/
7. Schwartz, B. et al., ‘Maximizing Versus Satisficing: Happiness Is a Matter of Choice,’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2002. — https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12416921/
8. Scheibehenne, B., Greifeneder, R. & Todd, P. M., ‘Can There Ever Be Too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice Overload,’ Journal of Consumer Research, 2010. — https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/37/3/409/1791712
9. Chernev, A., Bockenholt, U. & Goodman, J., ‘Choice Overload: A Conceptual Review and Meta-Analysis,’ Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2015. — https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1057740814000916

Related reading

• The Monocle That Was Never There
• The Painting You Retouch Every Time You Look

More from the Mind edition →