Is more choice better? Ten years ago the answer seemed obvious: Yes. Now the conventional wisdom is the opposite: lots of choice makes people less likely to choose anything, and less happy when they do choose.
選擇越多就越好嗎？10年前，答案似乎明顯是肯定的。如今，普遍的觀點則恰恰相反：大量選擇更有可能讓人們什么都不選，而在選擇時也不那么快樂。

The most famous supporting evidence is an experiment conducted by two psychologists, Mark Lepper and Sheena Iyengar. They set up a jam-tasting stall in a posh supermarket in California. Sometimes they offered six varieties of jam, at other times 24; jam tasters were then offered a voucher to buy jam at a discount.
支持這一說法的最著名證據(jù)，是心理學家馬克?萊普(Mark Lepper)和希娜?連格(Sheena Iyengar)進行的一次實驗。他們在加州的一家豪華超市設立了一個果醬品嘗柜臺。有時他們會提供6種果醬，其它時間為24種；品嘗果醬的顧客會得到一張打折購買果醬的優(yōu)惠券。

The bigger display attracted more customers but very few of them actually bought jam. The display that offered less choice made many more sales – in fact, only 3 per cent of jam tasters at the 24-flavour stand used their discount voucher, versus 30 per cent at the six-flavour stand. This is an astonishingly strong effect – and utterly counter to mainstream economic theory.
較大規(guī)模的展示吸引了更多顧客，但很少有人真正購買果醬。提供較少選擇的展示帶來了更多銷售——實際上，在提供24種果醬的柜臺，只有3%的品嘗者使用了打折優(yōu)惠券，而在提供6種選擇的柜臺，購買者高達30%。這是一個令人震驚的結果，與主流經(jīng)濟理論完全相悖。

One practical response to such experiments is that choice can be a good thing overall even if it does discourage us. I may find the choice between Robertson's jam and Wilkin and Sons' jam irritating and of no practical consequence to me, but you can bet that it has consequences for the two companies. We are often offered an apparently pointless choice between two equally good products, not appreciating that they are only good because we have been offered the choice.
對此類實驗一個講求實際的回答是，總體來說，選擇可以是件一件好事，即使它會讓我們泄氣。我可能會發(fā)現(xiàn)，在Robertson果醬和Wilkin and Sons果醬之間做出選擇令人不快，對我也沒有什么有用的效果，但你可以打賭，它會對兩家公司產(chǎn)生影響。我們常常被要求在兩件同樣好的產(chǎn)品之間做出明顯毫無意義的選擇，而沒有意識到，正是因為我們有了選擇的機會，它們才是好產(chǎn)品。