Let's simplify things a little. Just think about how much choice we have as consumers. How many cereals are on the shelves at your local mega-supermarket? I'd be willing to wager that, if you live in the US, there are at least 150. (The internet quotes an average of 250 out of 387 types of cereal sold in the US total, and each family regularly purchases 17 of these brands on average.)

Psychologists have studied the impact that practically unfettered choice like this has on people's happiness, mostly on the happiness of consumers. But the issue applies more generally than that. We can apply it directly to families. (Post-)modern families are families in which choice is king. Members are permitted flexibility in choosing their identities, preferences, and so on. Are the sort of postmodern families depicted on Modern Family - which include so many possibilities, so much freedom - likely to include happier members than those in more classical families, where freedom and choice are often sacrificed for the sake of tradition?

In order to answer this question, we'll keep things as general as possible. The essence of what we want to know is whether or not the sort of radical psychological freedom to choose that has emerged in most modern, industrialized countries is in fact a good thing or a bad thing. The "official dogma" seems to be that choice is good, and if some choice is good, then more is always better. This dogma has been challenged by Barry Schwartz, who coined "the paradox of choice" (also the title of his book) to foreshadow the drawbacks associated with having what he calls "too much" choice.

Too much choice?!?!?! What are these drawbacks, you might ask? To begin with, there is the issue of paralysis. The more options among which we attempt to choose, the longer it takes to settle on something. When the options are very numerous, and we attempt to make the best choice among them, we often become disoriented and then apathetic. There's only so much information we can process, and eventually we simply run out of cognitive steam. It's at that point that we feel an acute sense of disillusionment, and we are apt to exit the situation, thereby failing to optimize our options. Indeed, there is a negative correlation between the number of options we have and the decision to make a choice in the first place when the number of options is very large (Iyengar & Lepper, 2000). When there are too many options, we literally choose not to choose.

The second main drawback of superabundant choice is relative dissatisfaction. That is, in cases where you do manage to overcome paralysis in the face of very extensive options, you will be less happy with your choice than if you had chosen from fewer options. Why? Because when you choose from many, as opposed to few options, it's really easy to imagine that you could have done better in choosing. Basically, you have more "I should've," "If only" thoughts. Thus, you are more likely to regret your choice after you've made it. When you choose from fewer options, it is actually easier to feel better about that choice, even if you wind up with an alternative that is less than completely optimal. The sentiment that runs, "Well, at least I couldn't have done much better," reinforces your choice, increases your satisfaction with it, and lets you move on.

So, too much choice is bad. But, we should not assume then that having no choice, or even very little choice, is ideal. Feeling autonomous is a vital component of human psychological well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2001). There must, then, be a "sweet spot" at the center of some hypothetical continuum of choice after which additional options begin to increase paralysis and decrease satisfaction, and before which people begin feeling stifled. Where is that sweet spot? Wellllllllllllllll, I don't think anybody really knows. Please tell me when you find out.

OK, so where does that leave the postmodern families of Modern Family? Given what we've said, the question boils down to whether they hit the hypothetical sweet spot on the continuum of choice. How much freedom and flexibility to choose in the family environment is too much? Too little? Everybody's going to have their own opinions here, but for my part, I think that in general they mostly get it right. You may have a different opinion, but I think we can all agree that they all do a whole lot better than the Bundys on Married with Children.

 Ted Cascio is co-editor of House & Psychology (John Wiley & Sons).

Follow Ted on Twitter.