Psychology of Negotiation: Part V – 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 such as 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 examine two central questions: how an abundance of options affects a negotiator’s decision-making process, and how it influences satisfaction after the negotiation has concluded. Using a multi-theoretical approach, the findings reveal that generating too many options can actually lead to poorer choices. Both the number of options and the way 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 remain mindful of cognitive biases and behavioral tendencies when faced with numerous choices. In some circumstances, having more options can be as risky as having too few. The key takeaway is that option generation 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 of dispute resolution, conducted a series of behavioral psychology experiments on decision-making in negotiation contexts. 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 though the extra options provided no new information. The mere presence of additional choices led to a 12.8 percent reduction in the perceived value of the Corolla.
In another experiment, Guthrie demonstrated how irrelevant options could dramatically reverse preferences. When an inferior third option was introduced into a negotiation involving a disputed painting, participants significantly shifted their preferences, favoring an option they would not have selected otherwise.
These findings align with psychological concepts such as contrast effects and extremeness aversion, demonstrating that negotiators, like consumers, are susceptible to cognitive biases that influence decision-making in non-normative ways.
2. Charles Naquin on Negotiator Satisfaction
Charles Naquin’s research underscores the importance of limiting negotiable issues to enhance negotiator satisfaction. While traditional negotiation advice often encourages maximizing the number of issues to increase integrative potential, Naquin’s findings suggest that fewer, more manageable issues can result in higher satisfaction for negotiating parties. This insight is critical for applying psychological principles to effective 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 work shows that while economic outcomes matter, subjective factors such as relationships, fairness, being heard, and maintaining positive emotions are equally important. These findings further support the conclusion that psychological and emotional considerations play a central role in negotiation dynamics.
Conclusion
Although brainstorming and generating multiple options remains a widely endorsed negotiation strategy, it is important to recognize its potential drawbacks. The psychology of choice demonstrates that too many options can lead to decision fatigue, lower-quality decisions, and reduced satisfaction with outcomes. Negotiators who fail to account for these effects risk undermining both the quality and durability of their agreements.
Effective negotiation requires balancing the quantity and quality of options. By doing so, negotiators can improve decision-making, enhance satisfaction, and achieve outcomes that are both economically sound and psychologically sustainable.
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.
