New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Lingering with a Decision Breeds More Indecision

Researchers have found that time spent deliberating on a decision actually exacerbates the difficulty in making that decision. Christie Nicholson reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

What’s more important, a decision with life-long consequences, like getting married or moving? Or a decision about what to have for lunch? New research finds that we might magnify a seemingly trivial decision’s importance—if we find it difficult and we spend a lot of time making it.

In the study, volunteers chose between two flight options. One group was told the trip was long so it was important they chose the best option. The other group was told the trip was easy, so either option was fine. To manipulate the decision’s difficulty the researchers presented the two options either in a readable type size or in a hard-to-see tiny size.

When deciding about the tough trip, the subjects spent just as long deliberating over the easy to read options as the hard to read options. But for the unimportant decision, participants spent significantly more time with the hard-to-read option. In fact this group spent even more time than either of the groups faced with the important decision.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


And this extra time and effort led subjects to believe the decision was important, despite being told it was an easy trip and so an easy decision. The study will be published in the Journal of Consumer Research.

So time equals difficulty, which then translates into importance, which leads to even more time spent deciding. The researchers call this predicament “decision quicksand.” Speaking of which, I think I’ll have the BLT. Or maybe the chicken salad. Then again, the burger looks good…

—Christie Nicholson

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe