?

The counter-argument was once put in a sketch about TV deregulation by Stephen Fry and Hugh Laurie: a waiter whisks away silver cutlery from a politician responsible for the proliferation of channels before dumping a sackful of plastic coffee stirrers in his lap. “They may be complete crap, but you've got choice, haven't you?” Funny, but Fry and Laurie had it backwards. Zero choice is the fastest route to low quality.
斯蒂芬?弗萊(Stephen Fry)和休?勞利(Hugh Laurie)一幅關(guān)于電視監(jiān)管放松的作品曾展現(xiàn)了相反的論調(diào)：一位服務(wù)生收走了對(duì)頻道擴(kuò)散負(fù)有責(zé)任的政治家面前的銀質(zhì)餐具，然后把一袋塑料咖啡攪拌勺扔到他的腿上?！八鼈円苍S就是廢物，但你得到了選擇，不是嗎？”這有點(diǎn)可笑，但弗萊和勞利弄錯(cuò)了。零選擇是通向低質(zhì)量的最快捷路線。

But a more fundamental objection to the “choice is bad” thesis is that the psychological effect may not actually exist at all. It is hard to find much evidence that retailers are ferociously simplifying their offerings in an effort to boost sales. Starbucks boasts about its “87,000 drink combinations”; supermarkets are packed with options. This suggests that “choice demotivates” is not a universal human truth, but an effect that emerges under special circumstances.
但對(duì)于“選擇是件壞事”的命題，一個(gè)更重要的反對(duì)意見是，心理影響也許實(shí)際上根本就不存在。我們很難找到大量證據(jù)，證明零售商在為了提振銷售而極力減少產(chǎn)品的提供。星巴克(Starbucks)自詡擁有“8.7萬種飲品組合”；超市里的貨品琳瑯滿目。這表明，“選擇讓人失去動(dòng)力”并非放諸四海而皆準(zhǔn)的人類真理，而是一種在特殊情況下才會(huì)出現(xiàn)的結(jié)果。

Benjamin Scheibehenne, a psychologist at the University of Basel, was thinking along these lines when he 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.
巴塞爾大學(xué)(University of Basel)心理學(xué)家本杰明?謝伯翰(Benjamin Scheibehenne)在考慮這些問題時(shí)，決定（與彼得?托德(Peter Todd)以及后來的雷納?格雷芬尼德(Rainer Greifeneder)一道）設(shè)計(jì)一系列實(shí)驗(yàn)，考察選擇何時(shí)讓人失去動(dòng)力，何時(shí)又不會(huì)。

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.
但奇怪的事情幾乎立刻就發(fā)生了。一開始，他們試圖復(fù)制一些經(jīng)典的實(shí)驗(yàn)，比如果醬研究和與此類似的高級(jí)巧克力實(shí)驗(yàn)。他們沒有發(fā)現(xiàn)任何跡象，表明“選擇是件壞事”。無論是萊普-連格最初的實(shí)驗(yàn)，還是這項(xiàng)新的研究，似乎沒有問題，但結(jié)果就是不同，而我們不知道原因何在。

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.
謝伯翰和他的同事設(shè)計(jì)了10個(gè)不同的實(shí)驗(yàn)，要求參與者做出選擇，但幾乎沒有發(fā)現(xiàn)多樣性會(huì)產(chǎn)生問題的證據(jù)。其后，他們試圖把關(guān)于這一影響的所有研究（發(fā)表的和未發(fā)表的）放在一起加以整理。

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.
所有這些研究的平均水平表明，提供大量額外選擇對(duì)哪方面似乎都不會(huì)產(chǎn)生重大影響。似乎在有些情況下，選擇會(huì)產(chǎn)生反效果，然而盡管經(jīng)過仔細(xì)的尋找，我們?nèi)匀徊惶宄@些情況是什么樣子的。謝伯翰表示，總體而言，“如果你明天進(jìn)行其中一項(xiàng)研究，最可能的結(jié)果會(huì)是沒有任何影響。”選擇或許不像一些心理學(xué)家認(rèn)為的那樣詭異。無論如何，我們似乎可以應(yīng)付。