Due to past research, results would indicate an evident slant for the limited choice group being more satisfied and finding it less difficult to choose. The study recruited HIPPOS students to participate in a limited and extensive choice experiment in context to hotels. There were 661 participants, each chose one hotel and where then surveyed using six questions; three demographic and three in regards to difficulty, motivation and satisfaction using a 7-point Liker scale. The findings supported the hypothesis and were consistent with past research.
Satisfaction and difficulty of choice showed a statistically significant difference with limited choice groups ending it less difficult and ended more satisfied. Motivation wasn’t statistically significant however; the limited choice group were still more motivated to win. Society today has an explosion of choice and this study indicates that too much choice is causing choice overload and paralysis of the mind. Choice is great however, too much is damaging society. Social psychology is the study of how people or situations influence our feelings, thoughts and behavior.
Personal choice is a new study within social psychology and is highly important to research due to the ever-growing explosion of hoicks we are facing in today’s society. Schwartz (2006) discusses this stigma of more choice being attractive however; it’s decreasing people’s satisfaction and increasing paralysis of the mind. He states that extensive choice leads to greater expectations which leads to a decrease in overall satisfaction, self blame for not making the perfect choice, opportunity costs (i. E. Always wanting to do something that your not doing) and regret/anticipated regret. Mouse heart (2008) a radio host presenter spoke about the choice explosion occurring in today’s society with Hugh McKay, who has conducted wide-ranging search on the issue of the paradox of choice. Hugh suggests that there is a rise of the options generation which are people ranging from 18-35 years of age who can be distinguished by the pace of change in their lives and how comfortable they are with the open option. Hangar and Leper (2000) conducted three studies into the research of limited and extensive choice that explored motivation and satisfaction differences between the two groups. Study one used a display of jams of which two could only be tasted. One condition involved a selection of six jams and the other a selection of 24 jams. The results were evident that the extensive group found it less motivating to buy any jam due to paralyses and choice overload. Study two elongate and Leper (2000) involved essay topics of which the limited choice group chose from six and the extensive choice chose from 30.
The topics were based on the film 12 angry men. Results showed in the extensive group that motivation was severely affected when it came to writing the essay and the quality was hindered. Finally study three involved chocolates and three groups, limited choice, extensive choice and no choice (control group). Findings indicated that artisans in the limited choice who tasted chocolate were far more likely to receive $5. 00 worth of chocolate as payment for participating than the extensive group who mostly went for the money.
The results are contradictory as people in current society have an abundant of choice and perceive it to be better, however; current research shows it may be more beneficial to limit choice. Our study tried to explore this in the motivation, satisfaction and difficulty differences across the two choice groups by conducting a study with six limited choice options and 24 extensive choice options. The study that Decking university trimester two psychology students participated in was based on limited and extensive choice in context to hotels.
This study aimed to replicate current findings on motivation and satisfaction and to test the hypothesis, a person who had fewer hotels to choose from would be more motivated to win the reimbursement, find it less difficult to choose and be more satisfied with their choice of hotel over participants from the extensive choice group. Method Decking Hippos students were asked to pick one hotel at which they would like to stay at and one lucky student would win a $400. 00 reimbursement for there ATA. Participants were split into two groups at random allocation.
Half received a choice from six hotels (limited choice group) whereas the others received a choice from 24 hotels (extensive choice group). Once participants had chosen their desired hotel, they were asked a set of six questions, three of which were demographic and the remaining three were conducted using a 7-point Liker scale. Participants: Participants were from Decking University studying Hippos in trimester two. The study used a consequence sample randomly allocating participants into the two experimental groups, either extensive choice or limited choice.
There were 661 participants in this study, 546 of which were female and 115 of which were male. The ages ranged from 18-66 years of age: (M=22. 37 years, SD=7. 51 years). Consent was gained through a disclaimer at the start of the survey, which stipulated and outlined the ethical issues. Materials: Photographs of four to five star hotels in Queensland, Australia, with descriptive words explaining the hotel were used. To test the hypothesis a 7-point Liker scale was used to indicate the participants satisfaction, motivation to win and the difficulty the experienced from choosing a hotel.
Procedure: Students of Hippos were asked to complete a survey at their discretion. One lucky student had the chance to win a $400. 00 reimbursement for the hotel they chose in the study. Participants were then given a link to the survey online via cloud Decking. There was a consent form outlining the ethical issues and participants could either accept or decline to participate. The participants that voluntarily participated were then randomly categorized into the two experimental groups: one limited choice and the other extensive choice.
Photographs of hotels that were four to five stars based in Queensland, Australia ere then presented to the participants, the photographs had a few words description. The Limited choice group were able to choose from six hotels and the extensive choice group were able to choose from 24 hotels. After the participants had chosen they were then asked to complete a series of six questions, three of which were demographic based and asked for the student’s age, gender and also their student id number.
The second three questions were based on a 7-point Liker scale that asked for the participant’s motivation to win, how hard their choice was and how satisfied they were with their choice of hotel. A t-test was then used to derive the results. Results Table 1 Differences in motivation between the group measures of desirability to win the voucher were collated and presented in Table 1. Mean (M) and Standard Deviation (SD) for Motivation Measures in the Limited and Extensive Choice groups. Motivation to win SD Limited choice (6 hotels) 6. 3 1. 44 Extended choice (24 hotels) 6. 22 1 . 33 There was a slight difference between the limited choice group mean scores and the extensive choice mean scores in motivation and desirability to win the voucher. However, an independent measures t-test showed that the difference teen the data in Table 1 was not significant as the p value is >. 05. Motivation: t(659) = -1. 77, p > . 05 Table 2 Measures of difficulty of choice across the limited and extended choice groups were measured and presented in Table 2.
Mean (M) and Standard Deviation (SD) for Difficulty Measures for Limited and Extensive Choice Difficult Itty of choice 3. 17 1. 79 4. 04 1. 38 There was a difference between the limited choice group mean scores and the extensive choice group mean scores, with the limited choice group showing lower difficulty ratings. An independent measures t-test showed that differences in fisticuff ratings between the two groups was statistically significant due to the p value being The difficulty of choice both groups experienced and the satisfaction of choice both presented p values of <. which ndicates strong evidence due to the limited choice groups mean satisfaction rate being significantly higher and difficulty of lower . findings for motivation participants win reimbursement doesn show a significant statistical difference however hypothesis is still supported as group presents at in comparison extensive presented replicated study consistent with from lyengar lepper studies abc podcast by maushart s schwartz b video. they all found hat overload causes paralyses mind making it extremely difficult make when an range less overall participate. align="justify">The conducted study confirmed these findings and statistically supports them as previously stated. A limitation of the conducted study is that whilst the demographic was quite broad and the study had a large amount of participants, it was a very specific group of people majority being female, which leads to the study not being able to generalist the information found to the population, this could be fixed in future research y conducting a study on a broader scale and larger demographic pool via a randomized survey.
Another limitation the study came across was that the choice made on hotels is a trivial choice making decision and could therefore effect how seriously the participants took the study, if however, the survey was conducted on something more critical I would be interested as to see the results, this is something that future researchers should look out for. In conclusion to the study conducted the extensive amounts of choice society is facing currently is damaging the population.
Society is however built like this tit technology ever growing and choices expanding everyday, therefore the population need to find a way to cope with the paralysis it’s causing. In any case the limited choice groups were far better off and showed higher rates of satisfaction, found it less difficult to make a choice and had slightly more motivation to participate. The study supported the findings from Schwartz, B (2006), Mustard, S (2006) and elongate and Leper (2000).