• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 410 0

students in a photography class. The students made a print of their two best photographs. They were then told that they could choose one of the photos but that the other would be kept on file as an example of their work. Then, the teacher added a twist. One group was told that their choice was final. Whatever they chose, they could not change their minds later. The other group was told that they could switch photographs if they changed their minds. In a survey taken later, students who were allowed to change their mind liked their photos less than the other students. A similar study was done that allowed students the chance to return an art poster that they selected, and researchers found the same results—students who could reverse their decisions ended up liking their posters less. Why this paradoxical result? According to one researcher, the brain has a kind of built-in defense system that works to make us satisfied with choices that cannot be undone. Despite thinking that we would like the freedom to change our minds, it appears that we are happier with our choices if we think they can’t be changed, which means we would be better off if we made romantic commitments more permanent and more difficult to break, rather than less.

Think this doesn’t apply to relationships? Let’s take a quick look at a popular relationship choice that comes with its own opt-out clause: cohabitation. As numerous studies have found, couples that live together are less likely to get married. But the effect of cohabitation doesn’t stop there. Even if the couples do marry, they have an increased chance of divorce because it appears that living together weakens people’s commitment to marriage. This is a rather startling statistic when you consider that more than half of serious couples live together as a kind of pre-marriage trial. And if you pair it with the consumer research, you come to a rather shocking conclusion: the ability to change our minds romantically (which doesn’t stop at the altar anymore) is almost certainly hurting our relationships. I’m not arguing that people should stay in unhappy marriages, but I am saying that the ease with which we can leave a marriage is contributing to our unhappiness. It’s no surprise that the rise of divorce has occurred at the same time that marriage—at least in rhetorical terms—has gradually been stripped of all of its practical roles until a choice of life partner has been reduced to one single criteria: personal fulfillment. This is the same criteria that dominates our consumer choices, so we tend to treat it like a consumer choice as well and endlessly scan the horizon wondering if someone better is going to come along.

Imagine a dating world where the opposite rules applied, where people were not given the freedom to opt into or out of a relationship, such as a culture that still practices arranged marriages. What researchers have found will seem pretty amazing to Westerners weaned on the romantic story line. According to a study by two Indian researchers, the levels of self-reported love in arranged marriages increased over time until they surpassed the level of self-reported love in marriages that were freely chosen. Incredible as it sounds, people with a very limited say in choosing their own spouses eventually became happier with their relationship than people with the freedom to choose anyone they wanted. Think of all the advantages that the unfettered couples have. They know each other’s personalities and their tastes and whether or not there is any physical attraction, and so on. Despite all of that, the arranged marriages do better over the long haul. Why? I believe the secret has a lot to do with the discontent that is a by-product of a society predicated on choice. Cultures that use arranged marriages also frown on divorce, so a married couple knows that they are going to have to make things work. If the relationship sours, they face a lifetime of marital misery, and that offers a powerful incentive for making the best of things. To misquote JFK, it creates a mind-set where you ask