Some respondents were given a description of the options in a large, easy-to-read font, while others had to decipher a small, hard-to-read font. It took people making the “important” decision about the same amount of time to make a choice, no matter how clearly printed the directions were. But those faced with the “unimportant decision” and the unexpected complication of unclearly printed directions took longer to make a choice than any of the other groups.
In another experiment, two groups – totalling 261 student subjects – were instructed to select a college course for the following semester. One group of students was told that the choice was very important because it related to their major. The other group was told the opposite. The researchers also manipulated how much time participants believed had elapsed by speeding up the clock. It took those who had the less crucial task but who perceived that they had spent a significant amount of time in the decision-making process the longest to arrive at a final choice.
According to Berger, the results of the experiments have value both to the marketing industry and to ordinary people concerned with improving their time management. “Marketers don’t want to frustrate consumers or make them dissatisfied with a product or a store,” he notes. “Some are offering fewer options, collecting [data about consumers’] preferences and tailoring their products to those preferences.”
For example, Amazon asks new buyers to complete a profile of likes and dislikes. The company also keeps track of subsequent purchases. Using what is known as a “choice architecture”, Amazon targets its sales promotions to those preferences rather than bombarding the consumer with every special offer in the cyber store, Berger says.
The research also has implications for those who want to develop the superior time management skills and decisiveness that are generally viewed as essential for someone on a leadership track. “Culturally, we have this notion that decisiveness is power, particularly for politicians, even if a more deliberative approach is better,” Berger points out. Within the complex process of decision-making, he notes, there are two kinds of people: “Maximisers” are always on the lookout for the best option, while “satisficers” are inclined to settle for “good enough”. “In some ways, it’s good to be a maximiser,” he says. “But with regard to the endless trivial decisions that fill our days and weeks, it’s probably healthier to be satisfied with good enough.”
