Back to the directoryFind in the timeline
Choice overload and the jam tasting study
Iyengar and Lepper found that more shoppers stopped at a 24-jam tasting booth but more bought after seeing 6 jams. A 2010 meta-analysis found a mean effect near zero across studies, and a 2015 meta-analysis found an overall effect once moderators were included.
- Where it sits
- Academic psychologyResearch published for other researchers and students.
- Evidence level
- ContestedThe evidence conflicts or is disputed, for example after failed replications.
- Sources inspected
- 3 of 31 with the relevant text, company document or archive item checked, 2 as an abstract or reference article, 0 not verified.
What happened
In 2000 Sheena Iyengar and Mark Lepper published When Choice is Demotivating in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Study 1 was a field experiment on two consecutive Saturdays at Draeger's Supermarket in Menlo Park, California, which the authors thank for offering the store as a field site. A tasting booth displayed either 6 or 24 flavors of Wilkin and Sons jam. Two further studies used a class essay and chocolates.
The psychological idea
The choice overload hypothesis holds that a large set of options can look more attractive at first but reduce the motivation to choose or buy. Iyengar and Lepper compared limited sets of about six options with extensive sets of 24 or 30, to test the common assumption that more choice is necessarily more motivating.
In practice
Of 242 customers who passed the 24-jam display, 60 per cent stopped at the booth, against 40 per cent of 260 who passed the 6-jam display. Of the 6-jam group, nearly 30 per cent (31) later bought a jar using a $1 coupon, against 3 per cent (4) of the 24-jam group. Shoppers sampled about one or two jams either way.
Why it mattered
The study challenged an assumption the authors set out in their introduction, that having more choice is necessarily more motivating. Later meta-analyses reach different conclusions about how general the effect is, which is why the record is marked contested.
Limits and qualifications
Iyengar and Lepper note that shoppers chose whether to stop and that limited-choice customers might have thought the six jams special. Scheibehenne, Greifeneder and Todd (2010) pooled 63 conditions from 50 experiments (N = 5,036) and found a mean effect of virtually zero with wide variation. Chernev, Bockenholt and Goodman (2015) pooled 99 observations and report a significant overall effect once four moderators are included.
Evidence behind the claims
Study 1 was a field experiment on two consecutive Saturdays at Draeger's Supermarket in Menlo Park, California, with a tasting booth showing 6 or 24 flavors of Wilkin and Sons jam; the authors thank Draeger's for offering the store as a field site, and Studies 2 and 3 used a class essay and chocolates.
Of the 242 customers who passed the 24-jam display, 60 per cent (145) stopped, against 40 per cent (104) of the 260 who passed the 6-jam display; the means sampled were 1.50 and 1.38 jams.
Nearly 30 per cent (31) in the limited-choice condition bought a jar, against 3 per cent (4) in the extensive-choice condition; all shoppers received a $1 discount coupon.
The authors list limitations, including that shoppers chose whether to stop at the booth and that limited-choice consumers might have believed the six jams were special.
Scheibehenne, Greifeneder and Todd (2010) pooled 63 conditions from 50 experiments with 5,036 participants and report a mean effect size of virtually zero with considerable variance between studies.
Chernev, Bockenholt and Goodman (2015) analyzed 99 observations (N = 7,202), identified four moderators (choice set complexity, decision task difficulty, preference uncertainty and decision goal), and report a significant overall effect of assortment size once moderators are included.
People involved
- Sheena Iyengar. Psychologist, lead author of the 2000 study
- Mark Lepper. Psychologist, co-author
- Benjamin Scheibehenne. Lead author of the 2010 meta-analysis
- Alexander Chernev. Lead author of the 2015 meta-analysis
In the Psy101 course
- OpenStax Psychology 2e, section 7.3: Problem SolvingChapter 7, Thinking and Intelligence. Context. Nearest related section; it does not discuss this topic by name.Nearest related section: it covers heuristics and biases in decision making but does not discuss choice overload.
This is course relevance only. It is not evidence for the historical or corporate claims on this page.See the full course map.
Sources and inspection
3 of 3 sources were opened and read at the level shown. A source marked as not verified supports no claim on this page by itself.
- [1]When Choice is Demotivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing?Iyengar, S; Lepper, M. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79(6), 995-1006 (copy hosted at faculty.washington.edu), 2000. Journal article. Primary source.Relevant text checkedRead pages 995 to 998 of the PDF as page images (abstract, author note, introduction, Study 1 in full, Study 2 method). Study 2 results, Study 3 and the general discussion were not read.
- [2]Can There Ever Be Too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice OverloadScheibehenne, B; Greifeneder, R; Todd, P. Journal of Consumer Research 37(3), 409-425 (IDEAS/RePEc record), 2010. Journal article. Critique or replication.Abstract or publisher record onlyRead the abstract summary on the RePEc record. The paper was not opened.
- [3]When Product Assortment Leads to Choice Overload: A Conceptual Review and Meta-AnalysisChernev, A; Bockenholt, U; Goodman, J. Journal of Consumer Psychology, pages 333-358 (Kellogg School of Management research record), 2015. Journal article. Critique or replication.Abstract or publisher record onlyRead the abstract summary on the Kellogg record, which shows the title, authors, year and pages 333-358. The paper was not opened.
Access note: The 2010 and 2015 papers were read at abstract level only. The store is named as the 2000 paper gives it, as a field site; no claim is made about the store's own practice.
Independent source review: Claude review agent, independent of the research agent, 2026-10-21. Verdict: pass-with-edits.