A health insurance marketplace reduces its plan options from 40 to 6 curated plans and adds a comparison tool showing estimated annual costs for typical users. These changes reflect which choice architecture principles?
AIncreasing complexity to encourage more careful deliberation
BSimplification (reducing choice overload) and mapping (helping people understand outcomes)
CRestricting freedom of choice by removing options
DDefault setting and social norms
Reducing 40 options to 6 addresses choice overload — too many options can cause decision paralysis and worse choices (Iyengar & Lepper's jam study). The comparison tool addresses mapping — helping people translate abstract plan features (deductibles, copays, network restrictions) into concrete outcomes (estimated annual cost). Together, these changes make the decision environment more navigable without removing freedom of choice (people could presumably still access the full plan list).
Question 2 True / False
The order in which options are presented on a ballot, menu, or form does not affect choices because rational agents evaluate all options equally.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
Order effects are well-documented. Primacy effects (first-listed options receive more attention), position effects on ballots (candidates listed first gain a few percentage points), and default prominence all demonstrate that presentation order matters. In multi-page online forms, options on the first page receive disproportionate selection. These effects exist because cognitive effort is finite — people do not evaluate all options with equal attention, and early or prominent options receive more processing. Choice architects can exploit or mitigate these effects depending on their goals.
Question 3 Short Answer
How does the concept of 'mapping' improve choice architecture, and why is it needed?
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: Mapping helps people translate complex attributes of options into dimensions they can evaluate based on their own experience and preferences. For example, a retirement plan described in terms of 'asset allocation percentages' is harder to evaluate than one described as 'estimated monthly income at age 65.' Mapping is needed because many important choices involve technical features that people cannot easily translate into personal consequences, leading to poor or avoidant decision-making.
Mapping addresses the gap between option attributes (as presented) and personal outcomes (as experienced). A drug label listing dosage in milligrams means little to most patients; a label saying 'reduces your chance of a heart attack from 10% to 5%' maps the same information into a personally meaningful dimension. Effective choice architecture identifies the attributes people actually care about and presents options in those terms rather than in the dimensions most convenient for the provider.