Is Less Actually More?
When consumers walk into a store, should they be exposed to shelves and shelves of similar items or should they only be given a few options to choose from? This is the golden question. It is commonly accepted that more is better. More choices leads to more customers, which equals more money. But is this true? Some economists, including Barry Schwartz, believe in the paradox of choice, that having too many options can be counterproductive, and thus the number of options should be limited. However, not all economist agree with this theory. Many economists, including Daniel Mochon and Derek Thompson, believe that less is not actually more.
Consumer economist Daniel Mochon counters Barry Schwartz’s paradox of choice theory with a theory of his own. Mochon’s single-option aversion theory argues that when given only a single option, a take-it-or-leave-it situation, the customers will “leave it,” even if the item is pretty much what they were looking for. Unfortunately, Mochon misinterpreted Schwarz’s idea. He wrongly assumed that Barry Schwartz wants to eliminate choice all together; that is not the case. Schwartz argues that having too many choices can create dissatisfaction and thus the number of options should be limited, not that we shouldn’t be given a choice.
In addition, single option aversion does not always apply. While they could afford to “leave it” if they were purchasing a television, like the example used in the article “More is More: Why the Paradox of Choice Might Be a Myth,” “leaving it” would not be the ideal solution if they absolutely needed an item or service. Perhaps someone is making cupcakes for his daughter’s birthday and is out of eggs. Even if there is only one type of eggs at the grocery store, they are still eggs and can be used to make the cupcakes. It does not matter whether they are extra large or grade A or organic, the eggs will serve their purpose and the cupcakes will taste just fine.
Derek Thomspon reasons that single option aversion occurs because having only one option makes people interested in searching for comparisons. Customers are looking for the best of the best and are not willing to buy something unless they know that it is the best possible deal that they can get. Searching for comparisons is a sign of maximization. Maximizers are customers who are always looking for the perfect option. They do this by analyzing all the alternatives that they can imagine; a very grueling and time consuming task. However, research has shown that maximizers are more likely to be unhappy, become depressed, and experience regret. Yet, having a lot of options compels us to try to maximize the benefits of our choice. So it can be said that having a lot of options can lead to misery.
While Mochon attempted to counter Barry Schwartz’s paradox of choice theory by arguing the other end of the spectrum, he failed to successfully discredit Schwartz as he misinterpreted Schwartz’s argument. He also tried to claim that there were holes in the paradox of choice, yet there are flaws in his single-option aversion theory. Derek Thompson tried to back up Mochon by reasoning why single-option aversion occurs, but he too must not have done his research. Schwartz discusses what happens when people attempt to find the best of the best. He did research on maximizers, and he along with other economists found that maximizers are more likely to become unhappy in different aspects of their lives. To defeat the enemy is to know the enemy and Daniel Mochon and Derek Thompson did not win.
Work Cited
Thompson, Derek.“More is More: Why the Paradox of Choice Might Be a Myth.” The Atlantic. n.p. 19 August 2013. Web. 9 April 2014.
alwaystired247
AnonymousStudent
azntaco
beforeverge
BigBabyBaller
bitagaming
breakingbad1820
Caravan
cinderella1013
davidbdale
Yankeelover18
fatboy489zt
giantsfan224
glacierfreeze21
gobirds17
green0728
gymrat230
Gir
jerseymikes1106
jesusisking1738
jetsfan806
Kenneth Alex Krug
manipulator66
mercythyhealer14
McCormick Karner
mochaatrain
oni
powerranger
peanut2348
pinkcottoncandy4
princess01430
redbird1123
rubes1256
shxrkbait
sillyinternetperson
soulpond47240
spatel8267
stingingcrib5
tacotyphoon
thepersonindisguise
usmnt23
worldofjuice999
xephos1
Counterintuitive Fall 2022 
Can I have feedback please so that I can decide which short arguments to stick in my portfolio
Way too much feedback provided. —DSH
P1. Counterproductive of what?
*number of options (Learn this; we shall soon be parted.)
—You confuse readers rhetorically when you say you’ll explain the “paradox of choice,” and you do, but you interrupt yourself with “less-is-more,” which is the opposite phrasing. You’ve mixed your “too many is negative” with your “fewer is positive.”
I like, however, the brevity and conceptual clarity of your introduction, Simone. You stumble on your sequence, but it’s clear you will be offering a rebuttal to a theory you have taken the time to detail.
P2. Punctuation of Noun Apposites (Learn this too.)
—Daniel Mochon (comma) consumer economist and man-about-town (comma) has a theory of his own.
—Consumer economist Daniel Mochon counters Barry Schwartz’s paradox . . . .
You may get to this, but I’m resisting your argument at the moment. You appear to be offering a false choice: either too many choices or no options at all. The fact (if it’s true) that consumers will decline to buy the only item on the shelf for want of choice does not mean that they prefer 100 choices. They might prefer anything between 2 and 99.
ALWAYS double quotes unless inside double quotes, even for little phrases like “leave it.”
Not quite. “Having only one option” doesn’t send us looking for comparisons. We like comparisons and will seek them no matter how many items you show us. I’d say the logic here is that with only one item to examine, we compare it to the ideal object we imagined on our way into the store. Even if the item on the shelf is better, it doesn’t match our ideal.
P3. This seems very reasonable. The need to fulfill basic needs trumps “shopping preferences” every time, or should.
But since you’ve brought up insurance, many people neglect to buy it out of paralysis. They can’t make sense of the options and would prefer somebody choose for them.
SomeONE (singular) cannot make cupcakes for THEIR (plural) daughter.
This topic is so rich with ambiguity the argument almost always turns on which examples you choose.
—You don’t name an item or category in P1, so we can make vague but untestable general theories.
—You use a physical “item on a shelf” for P2, which could be either flu medicine or eyeliner (essential or discretionary), so we’re no better off.
—When you introduce basic necessities, it’s clear the paradox breaks down.
—But even among necessities (eggs and insurance both), the stakes are so low for eggs, we’ll buy regardless. As for insurance, the stakes seem incredibly high, but most people still delay the purchase, often for decades, for a variety of reasons that may or may not have to do with the number of options. Regarding TVs, having one is considered essential, but here the item lends itself to rich paradox. Do we NEED an ultra-high def TV the size of a billboard? Here the purchase is as much about self-image or self-gratification as it is about need fulfillment.
Tricky stuff. The more closely you can ground your argument in specific cases, the more persuasive they’ll be.
Graded for Portfolio.
Had I known that you were going to grade them right now I would have worked on the stuff before I re-wrote the definition essay.
The fact that you’re still working on them now with a chance at grade improvement is the purest gift. If you’re still looking for favors, revise your Visual Rhetoric and your Research Paper to reflect responsiveness to feedback. There’s an overall A within reach that you will not achieve with those two components in their unedited state. Let me know with comments when you’ve accomplished them. We will not review your grades again until the conference tomorrow. Good luck, Simone. You have all the skill you need to achieve excellence.
Those two are literally the assignment that I have open and editing at the moment. I was halfway through the visual argument when I saw your comments.
Smart girl. Keep ahead of me. I’ll try not to lap you.
last one