More options sold less jam
A grocery store, two tasting tables, and one of the cleanest results in the psychology of choice.
In 1995, the psychologist Sheena Iyengar set up a tasting table at an upscale grocery store, alternating between two displays: one with twenty-four flavors of jam, one with six. The big table pulled more browsers — sixty percent of shoppers stopped, versus forty percent at the small one. Then Iyengar tracked who actually bought jam afterward.
Of the shoppers who'd stopped at the twenty-four-flavor table, three percent bought a jar. Of those who'd stopped at the six-flavor table, thirty percent did. Accounting for the larger crowd the big display drew, people were still about six times more likely to buy after seeing fewer options.
More choice generated more looking and less deciding — the abundance felt appealing in the moment and paralyzing a minute later, when every option not chosen became a small, specific loss. The finding traveled well beyond jam, echoing through retirement plans, dating apps, restaurant menus. The paradox isn't that people dislike choice. It's that past a fairly low ceiling, choice stops being freedom and starts being homework.