the yin and yang of markets

a book i’m reading now, the paradox of choice by barry schwartz, discusses two types of consumers. his theory contends that there are those who must find the best possible item at the best possible price (“maximizers”), and those who take a more measured approach by settling on a “good enough” item because they don’t want to waste their time analyzing seemingly infinite alternatives (“satisficers”). after reading this, i began to think about my last post on shopping around, i thought i’d bring a bit of it to bear on the subject.
the ncc laments that many poor people cannot afford to be maximizers, searching for the best price to cut costs. however, schwartz suggests that this strategy may not be psychologically rewarding. he cites studies backing up his claim that maximizers “get less satisfaction out of” and “feel less positive about” their purchases than do those who look at few options. one study indicates that the more options we examine, the less satisfied we are with our final choice. interestingly, but not surprisingly, maximizers are also less satisfied with life in general and tend to be more depressed.
i’m not going to claim that being poor increases happiness, but i am going to suggest that perhaps having to choose among fewer options may not be as bad as it may seem, and is not necessarily something society needs to fix.

Labels: economics, well being