Psychology of Negotiation: Part III – The Hidden Power of Simplifying Choices
When it comes to negotiation, generating multiple options is often viewed 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 chapter examines the psychological complexities associated with having too many options and how they affect negotiation outcomes.
The Vulnerability of Option Generation
The process of generating numerous options is not as beneficial as it might initially appear. Chris Guthrie, in his work Panacea or Pandora’s Box? The Costs of Options in Negotiation, explains that the assumption that more options lead to better outcomes is flawed. It rests on the belief that negotiators will always act rationally when faced with multiple alternatives, carefully assessing each option and selecting the one with the greatest value.
In reality, the presence of multiple options often leads to suboptimal decisions. People frequently struggle to identify the most valuable choice when confronted with too many alternatives, resulting in what is commonly referred to as the “choice overload” trap.
Guthrie identifies three primary pitfalls of option generation: decision aversion, irrational decision-making, and negative psychological effects. This chapter focuses on the first two, leaving the discussion of negative effects for a later chapter.
Psychological Consequences of Multiple Options
When faced with too many choices, negotiators may experience decision aversion, which can lead to deferral or avoidance. The sheer number of alternatives can create psychological conflict, affecting both the decision-maker’s mental state and the decisions ultimately made.
1. Decision Aversion
Decision aversion occurs when individuals defer or delay making a choice. Amos Tversky and Eldar Shafir describe this phenomenon as follows: “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 were presented with a larger number of options were more likely to delay their decision than those offered fewer alternatives. Negotiators similarly may defer decisions when overwhelmed by multiple options, potentially missing time-sensitive opportunities.
2. Decision Avoidance
Another manifestation of decision aversion is decision avoidance, where negotiators refrain from making any choice at all. Research shows that reducing the number of available options can increase decision-making and commitment. In one study, when the product range at an online grocery store was cut in half, sales increased by up to eleven percent. This finding suggests that an excess of options can be demotivating, pushing individuals to disengage from the decision-making process altogether.
The well-known “Jam Study” by Sheena Iyengar and Mark Lepper further illustrates this effect. Shoppers who encountered a display offering 24 jam flavors were less likely to make a purchase than those presented with only six flavors. Although the larger display attracted more attention, only 3 percent of those shoppers made a purchase, compared to 30 percent in the smaller assortment group. The researchers concluded that extensive variety tends to benefit browsers rather than buyers.
3. Irrational Decisions
Option generation can also lead to irrational decisions that fail to reflect a negotiator’s true preferences. Psychological research demonstrates that people often choose between descriptions of options rather than the options themselves. As a result, framing effects can significantly influence decision-making.
In one study, participants’ preferences shifted when unemployment and inflation rates were presented differently, even though the underlying data remained mathematically equivalent. This suggests that the way options are framed can distort judgment.
Another related phenomenon is context-dependent decision-making, in which the attractiveness of an option depends on the alternatives presented alongside it. Research shows that introducing a “decoy” option—an alternative designed not to be chosen but to make another option appear more attractive—can systematically shift preferences toward the target option.
Conclusion: Less Is More in Negotiation
The evidence is clear: generating numerous options in negotiation can trigger psychological traps that influence outcomes in unintended ways. Negotiators may defer decisions, avoid choosing altogether, or make irrational choices when overwhelmed by excessive alternatives. Understanding these psychological tendencies is essential for developing more effective negotiation strategies and avoiding the pitfalls of choice overload.
In the next chapter, we will explore the psychological consequences of option generation further by examining how negotiators experience satisfaction and regret after an agreement is reached.
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.
