Last week a thin slice of sock began revealing itself through a hole in my shoe. I had put it off long enough; it was time to buy another pair. So I googled “buy running shoes,” and suddenly had 27,000 shoe stores to choose from. Surely I’d find the perfect pair. But maybe it’s not so great to have thousands of footwear options. In fact, psychologist Barry Schwartz suggests that boundless choice can yield paralysis and misery. Schwartz and colleagues (e.g., 2002, 2004) have suggested a strategy for evading the downsides of excessive choice. Their approach–called “satisficing”–may be helpful for many people. But another approach may also solve the problems uncovered by Schwartz and colleagues; mindfulness may also resolve the Paradox of Choice.

Comprehensively describing the psychological burden of choice abundance is outside of scope, but here are a few reasons that too much choice can be a bad thing. First, the more choices you have, the more you have to give up. Considering many choices, and having to forego many attractive features of things not chosen, causes regret (e.g., 2002, 2004, pp. 117-126). I love my new shoes, but there are Nike aeration and cushioning features that my new Sauconys aren’t equipped with. The more choices available, the more desirable features I can regret passing up.

Post-decision regret isn’t the only downside of choice abundance. When you lack the time to survey all options, you can also anticipate regret. Foregoing desirable features is inevitable when you have an overwhelming number of choices, and people anticipate missing out on these features (Schwartz et al., 2002). With fewer options, there are fewer things to worry about missing out on.

Seeking the very best choice (i.e., “maximizing”) may also magnify the negative consequences of “hedonic adaptation.” Most pleasures quickly lose their luster. When you first cruise in a new convertible, it feels fabulous. You might still enjoy your 5th commute to work. But your 117th trip in that beloved Mustang probably won’t feel much better than the 117th trip in an ‘84 Corolla. Putting effort into finding the ideal automobile among many choices can cause frustration. It’s disheartening to invest time into choosing the best option only to hedonically adapt such that the option no longer brings any joy (e.g., Schwartz, 2004, pp. 168-172). The regret, anticipated regret, disappointment due to hedonic adaptation, and other downsides of choice abundance, may actually cause clinical depression (Schwartz et al., 2002).

So what do we do? Schwartz et al. suggest a three-step approach. First, they say we should identify desired features of a sought entity (a toaster, a spouse, etc). Then, say Schwartz et al., we should find a choice that fulfills these criteria. Finally, when an option that fulfills our criteria is identified, we should choose it and end the search. Put simply, we should “satisfice” rather than “maximize” (e.g., Schwartz et al., 2002). This strategy may prevent regret, anticipated regret, and disappointment resulting from hedonic adaptation. “Satisficers” often attain everything they sought. They devote less attention to desirable features whose absence they may later regret. Because they resolve to be satisfied once they find a choice that fulfills their criteria, satisficers probably don’t anticipate regretting foregone attractive features. The disappointment resulting from hedonic adaptation is also minimized because the amount of effort invested in choosing is minimized.

Schwartz et al.’s approach may certainly be helpful, but it may not be the only way to address problems caused by choice abundance; mindfulness may also help resolve the Paradox of Choice. Mindfulness has been defined as a state in which one is “attentive to and aware of what is taking place in the present” (Brown & Ryan, 2003), or as “the clear and single-minded awareness of what actually happens to us and in us at the successive moments of perception” (Thera, 1972, p. 5). It involves “understanding every single physical and mental movement we make throughout every waking hour of the day” (Gunaratana, 2001, p. 193), and has been described as a release from the discursive and disturbingly common affliction of incessant and uncontrollable thought (Tolle, 1999, p. 12).

If one is attentive to and aware of the present moment, and all of one’s attention is devoted to the previously-selected choice, then no attention is wasted on foregone potentialities. Attending only to the present environment and the present moment may prevent people from ruminating about desirable attributes of the options they didn’t choose. Anticipated regret may be avoided for obvious reasons; mindfulness involves attention to the present rather than the future. Finally, mindfulness may prevent hedonic adaptation (e.g., Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, & Schkade, 2005) that can harm maximizers through the aforementioned mechanism. Hedonic adaptation may be at least partially caused by the tendency to devote more attention to new stimuli than to old stimuli (e.g., Johnston, Hawley, Plewe, Elliott, & DeWitt, 1990). Devoting full attention to the present moment and present environment may facilitate continued attention to, and thus enjoyment of, old stimuli (e.g., Hanh, 1992; Suzuki, 1973). Preventing hedonic adaptation through mindfulness may prevent disappointments that arise when meticulously-selected choices lose their initial luster.

A caveat: this application of mindfulness is hypothetical. We don’t know if mindfulness is a good way to sidestep the Paradox of Choice. Positive psychology is (at least purportedly) about science, which I strongly support, and I emphasize that there are no data supporting this hypothesis.

If mindfulness can resolve the Paradox of Choice, this poses new questions. Should people overcome problems associated with choice abundance through satisficing or through mindfulness? For whom and under which circumstances should we choose the former? The latter? Fortunately, choosing from fewer than six options probably won’t cause regret and dissatisfaction (Schwartz, 2005). Choosing between these two strategies is unlikely to induce a Paradox of Choice.

Jordan Silberman, MAPP ‘06, does pediatric palliative care research at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Jordan’s bio. Jordan writes on the 27th of each month, and his past articles are here.