More attention is being given to the stable, dispositional tendency to maximize when making decisions. Within the growing body of research has been an exchange regarding the appropriate means of measuring maximizing tendency. Guided primarily by psychometric and statistical analyses, these studies have critiqued and revised existing maximizing tendency scales and/or introduced new measures. Importantly, many of these discussions seem to ignore theoretical considerations of the construct of maximizing. In this article, we revisit the original work of Herbert Simon, from where the theory of maximizing tendency was developed, and provide a theoretical account for how maximizers can be distinguished from satisficers and the implications therein for the measurement of maximizing tendency. Across two studies, we provide an updated psychometric, correlational, and behavioral comparison of the two most popular maximizing tendency scales: the Maximization Scale and the Maximizing Tendency Scale. Results demonstrate that the Maximizing Tendency Scale is more theoretically and psychometrically valid than the Maximization Scale. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Additional supporting information may be found in the online version of this article at the publisher's web-site.key words maximizing tendency; maximize; satisfice; theoretical evaluation; psychometric evaluationOver the past decade, increased attention has been given to the dispositional tendency to maximize; within this growing body of research is a debate regarding the proper measurement of maximizing tendency. What has been given less attention, however, is the theory of maximizing and how it relates to the measurement of maximizing tendency. Indeed, many of the articles have attempted to identify the best measure of maximizing tendency based primarily on psychometric evidence ignoring the theory of the construct. This is problematic insofar as appropriate measurement of psychological variables hinges upon sound theories of constructs. The primary purpose of this article, therefore, is to present a theoretical justification for the measurement of maximizing tendency. The secondary purpose is to provide a comparison of the two most popular maximizing tendency scales: the Maximization Scale (MS; Schwartz et al., 2002) and the Maximizing Tendency Scale (MTS; Diab, Gillespie, & Highhouse, 2008). Across two studies, we examine which scale performs better psychometrically and theoretically. The theory of maximizing tendencyThe concept of maximizing was derived from Simon's (1955Simon's ( , 1956) work on satisficing. Simon argued that the normative, rational model of decision making-wherein decision-makers consider all alternatives, choosing the utility-maximizing option-was incompatible with the limits of basic human information and computational processing.Stated differently, humans could not optimize their decisions as would be suggested by the rational-man model of decision making. Instead, Simon argued, individuals elected to find an alternative that ...

Recent research suggesting that people who maximize are less happy than those who satisfice has received considerable fanfare. The current study investigates whether this conclusion reflects the construct itself or rather how it is measured. We developed an alternative measure of maximizing tendency that is theory-based, has good psychometric properties, and predicts behavioral outcomes. In contrast to the existing maximization measure, our new measure did not correlate with life (dis)satisfaction, nor with most maladaptive personality and decision-making traits. We conclude that the interpretation of maximizers as unhappy may be due to poor measurement of the construct. We present a more reliable and valid measure for future researchers to use.

Understanding why decision makers resist using standardized approaches to employee selection requires understanding basic feelings and beliefs about different approaches for collecting and combining assessment information. This study examines lay perceptions of selection decision aids, using a sample of 418 working adults. Holding constant the attributes measured, participants from the United States perceive holistic integration to be superior to mechanical integration for combining interview scores, as well as for combining test scores. Participants from outside of the United States prefer holistic integration of interview scores, but slightly prefer mechanical integration of test scores.

Humility has emerged as a focus of leadership research in recent years, culminating with the theory of humble leadership. The current study added to the humble leadership literature by examining the relations among leader humility, psychological safety, and employee engagement. The study particularly examined the three constructs in the context of a mediational model. Data were collected from 140 workers who reported their perceptions of their immediate supervisor's humility, as well as their own psychological safety and work engagement. Results showed that the relation between humble leadership and employee engagement was fully mediated by psychological safety. Thus, by acknowledging limitations and mistakes, recognizing followers’ strengths and contributions, and modeling teachability, leaders can create an environment in which followers can act without fear of negative ramifications and can fully engage in their work.

The purpose of this research was to investigate inaction inertia in a job offer context. Across two studies, we examined the influence of two situational factors (Study 1) and one dispositional factor (Study 2) on inaction inertia in a job offer context. Participants were asked to imagine they had to pass up an initial offer in which they were interested, but that they received a similar but less attractive offer (lower salary) later. Study 1 findings revealed participants in the loss-framed condition were more likely to accept the second offer than participants in the neutral condition only when they were asked to imagine they were switching careers, versus being laid off. Study 2 results showed that maximizing tendency significantly and negatively predicted the likelihood to accept the second job offer. Exploratory analyses revealed that anticipated regret did not mediate the relationships between any of the factors and inaction inertia, suggesting that anticipated regret was not the causal mechanism underlying the occurrence of inaction inertia in the current research. Overall, this research shed light on the ways inaction inertia may be experienced in a job offer context. 2009). Van Putten et al. (2009) explored the differences between action-oriented people and state-oriented people and urged 634 | V C 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jasp J Appl Soc Psychol. 2017;47:634-645.