New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Learn to Be Happier with Second Best

When your first choice is unavailable, you may be more satisfied with something completely different 

Alain Schroeder Getty Images

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

You can't always get what you want—the car is too expensive, the restaurant already full, your favorite snack sold out—but you can do your best to choose the next most appealing option. Research suggests that when making that second choice, you might end up happier if you go for something very different from what you originally wanted.

In a series of studies published in May in Psychological Science, researchers probed participants' preferences by tempting them with gourmet chocolate. The scientists let subjects taste the fancy brand and then offered them a choice between a similar substitute (store-brand chocolate-covered peanuts) and a radically different substitute (a granola bar). Another set of participants got the same setup, but they were allowed to try both options before choosing. In the first experiment, 73 percent chose the generic chocolate, but in the second experiment, only 52 percent did—more participants presumably had realized they would be happier with the granola bar.

In an additional experiment, participants were assigned to eat some gourmet chocolate or a bite of either substitute, and then they were asked how much they still craved the original fancy chocolate. Those who ate the store-brand chocolate ended up craving the gourmet version more than those who ate the granola bar. In fact, those who ate the granola bar craved the gourmet chocolate no more than those who ate the fancy chocolate itself.


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.


The fact that the similar substitute was less satisfying and left a stronger residual craving suggests the existence of a “negative contrast effect,” according to the researchers. “A poor replacement is worse in terms of ultimate satisfaction than something completely different that serves the same purpose,” explains Carey K. Morewedge, an associate professor of marketing at the Boston University School of Management and senior author of the study.

The finding is useful for people on restricted diets. Yet researchers also think this psychological phenomenon probably applies to a lot more than just food. The next time you find yourself in a situation where the thing you really want is not available, try a wildly different option and enjoy it without a second thought.

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