Too many restaurant options? Why a short list works

Twenty-four jams, or six

The best-known study of too many choices took place at a tasting booth. In a 2000 study by Sheena Iyengar and Mark Lepper, shoppers at a grocery store in Menlo Park, California, passed a table of jams on two Saturdays. Sometimes it held 24 jams, sometimes 6.

The big display drew more people in: 60% of the shoppers who passed the 24 jams stopped at the booth, against 40% at the 6. But buying went the other way. Nearly 30% of those who stopped at the small display bought a jar, against 3% of those who stopped at the big one.

That was jam in a supermarket, not dinner with friends. Still, the pattern is familiar to anyone who has shared a long list in a group chat: a long list is fun to look at, and can be harder to choose from.

It does not always happen

The jam study is not the last word. When Benjamin Scheibehenne, Rainer Greifeneder and Peter Todd reviewed 50 experiments in 2010, they found that, on average, more options made virtually no difference, though results varied a lot from study to study.

So a long list isn't always a problem. Sometimes people choose from one easily, sometimes they stall. The honest reading is that a long list can get in the way, though it doesn't always.

Decision fatigue is a feeling, not a finding

"Decision fatigue" is a popular name for the worn-out feeling that comes after choosing all day. It describes something most of us recognise. But the research behind it is not settled, so it is better treated as a way of saying how choosing feels than as a proven effect.

Whatever you call it, the group version is easy to spot. Every extra option is one more thing to compare, one more link to open, and one more opinion to weigh against the others.

Why a group needs a short list

When you choose a restaurant alone, a long list costs only your own time. A group has to agree, and every option on the table is one more that somebody might argue for. The conversation spreads out instead of coming together.

A short list changes the question. Instead of "where should we go?", it asks "which of these?", and that's a question a group can answer. It helps most when every place on it already works for everyone: nobody has to object to a place they can't eat at, and the choice comes down to what people would enjoy.

How to make a short list that works

• Start with the must-haves. Find out what each person can't eat, what they'd like to spend and when they're free, before anyone suggests a place.
• Rule out what doesn't fit. A place that fails anyone's must-have doesn't belong on the list, however good it looks.
• Keep it to a handful. Around five places is enough to give people a real choice without starting a new debate.
• Let everyone vote. A choice the group made together is one people look forward to.
• Have a next round ready. If the group turns them all down, bring the next few places rather than starting over.

How MiBA helps

MiBA builds the short list for you. One person starts a gathering and shares one link. Everyone answers a few questions on their own: what they feel like eating, the vibe, the budget and what they don't eat. You see what the group would love only after you've answered. Your no's, your diet and your budget stay private.

MiBA ranks every place from everyone's answers, the host puts up to five on a short list, and everyone votes. If every place on the short list gets a no, MiBA brings the next places to vote on. Then you get a link to book, and everyone hears where and when.

Group decisions. Sorted.