Others have found Iyengar & Lepper’s study hard to replicate:
Benjamin Scheibehenne, a psychologist at the University of Basel, … decided (with Peter Todd and, later, Rainer Greifeneder) to design a range of experiments to figure out when choice demotivates, and when it does not.
But a curious thing happened almost immediately. They began by trying to replicate some classic experiments – such as the jam study, and a similar one with luxury chocolates. They couldn’t find any sign of the “choice is bad” effect. Neither the original Lepper-Iyengar experiments nor the new study appears to be at fault: the results are just different and we don’t know why.
After designing 10 different experiments in which participants were asked to make a choice, and finding very little evidence that variety caused any problems, Scheibehenne and his colleagues tried to assemble all the studies, published and unpublished, of the effect.
The average of all these studies suggests that offering lots of extra choices seems to make no important difference either way. There seem to be circumstances where choice is counterproductive but, despite looking hard for them, we don’t yet know much about what they are. Overall, says Scheibehenne: “If you did one of these studies tomorrow, the most probable result would be no effect.” Perhaps choice is not as paradoxical as some psychologists have come to believe. One way or another, we seem to be able to cope with it.
(Excellent post, Luke. Thank you.)
Others have found Iyengar & Lepper’s study hard to replicate:
Paper referenced: http://www.scheibehenne.de/ScheibehenneGreifenederTodd2010.pdf
Great, thanks for pointing me to this!
The choice mechanism is definitely not well-understood yet. For example, it’s not clear how our brains divide up the choices in the choice set.
I’ve edited my post a bit to reflect this meta-analysis.