Do maximizers maximize in private? The influence of public versus private context on maximizing

Luan, Mo; Li, Hong

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2019.06.024

Cited by 12 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar think‐aloud paradigms have been used to assess qualitative responses to many options broadly, and have largely been found to not affect these processes (e.g., Pan et al, 2013; Woll, 1986). However, recent work suggests that maximizers tend to engage in more maximizing behaviors when their decision is public versus private, whereas satisficers show no such differences (Luan & Li, 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is satisficing really satisfying? Satisficers exhibit greater threat than maximizers during choice overload

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When selecting from too many options (i.e., choice overload), maximizers (people who search exhaustively to make decisions that are optimal) report more negative post-decisional evaluations of their choices than do satisficers (people who search minimally to make decisions that are sufficient). Although ample evidence exists for differences in responses after-the-fact, little is known about possible divergences in maximizers' and satisficers' experiences during choice overload. Thus, using the biopsychosocial model of challenge/threat, we examined 128 participants' cardiovascular responses as they actively made a selection from many options. Specifically, we focused on cardiovascular responses assessing the degree to which individuals (a) viewed their decisions as valuable/important and (b) viewed themselves as capable (vs. incapable) of making a good choice. Although we found no differences in terms of the value individuals placed on their decisions (i.e., cardiovascular responses of task engagement), satisficers-compared to maximizers-exhibited cardiovascular responses consistent with feeling less capable of making their choice (i.e., greater relative threat). The current work provides a novel investigation of the nature of differences in maximizers'/satisficers' momentary choice overload experiences, suggesting insight into why they engage in such distinct search behaviors.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is satisficing really satisfying? Satisficers exhibit greater threat than maximizers during choice overload

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Os resultados atuais sugerem que a estratégia DGL pode ajudar os indivíduos, especialmente maximizadores, a perceberem que seu processo de tomada de decisão mais cauteloso e reflexivo na verdade não foi desperdiçado; em vez disso, na condição experimental, forneceu resultados melhores do que apenas o objetivo primário esperado. IYENGAR; WELLS; SCHWARTZ, 2006;LUAN;LI, 2017WEAVER et al, 2015).…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

“…Assim, a tendência dos maximizadores de sempre buscar um número maior de possibilidades pode aumentar expectativas irrealisticamente altas (DIAB;GILLESPIE;HIGHHOUSE, 2008;IYENGAR;WELLS;SCHWARTZ, 2006). Na verdade, os maximizadores geralmente despendem mais esforço em suas decisões devido à tendência de investigar e buscar alternativas múltiplas (CHOWDHURY;RATNESHWAR;MOHANTY, 2009;DAR-NIMROD et al, 2009;LUAN;YANG;CHIOU, 2010). Embora mais esforço maximizaria suas chances de um resultado positivo, tal estratégia maximiza também suas chances de encontrar um resultado negativo (POLMAN, 2010), uma vez que são eles quem poderiam gerar mais pensamentos contrafactuais que comparassem o resultado real com, possivelmente melhores, opções decartadas.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

“…Nos Estados Unidos, 95% das devoluções de produtos não estão relacionadas aos defeitos do produto, e 27% da taxa de devolução foi associada ao "remorso do comprador" (ACCENTURE, 2011). Essa motivação baseada no arrependimento para devolver um produto à loja pode levar a problemas, como custos de envio elevados, boca a boca negativo sobre uma marca, intenções de troca de marca e avaliação de compra negativa (por exemplo, BUI; KRISHEN;BATES, 2011;ROESE, 2014). No entanto, na maioria das situações, as escolhas dos indivíduos não são reversíveis.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

“…Além da sensação de progresso sólido, muitas contribuições podem ser feitas para o desenvolvimento do tópico arrependimento, por meio de especulação, afirmação, esclarecimento, reiteração, ajuste, negação ou síntese Com base nas definições de Huff (2008), esta pesquisa visa esclarecer a Teoria da Regulação do Arrependimento (RRT), mostrando como a estratégia DGL pode regular o arrependimento dos indivíduos, mas em níveis diferentes de acordo com as características intrínsecas. Desse modo, a RRT pode dar um passo crítico à frente, uma vez que se assume que o arrependimento tem um efeito interessante e significativo, especialmente nas decisões de consumo (BUI;KRISHEN;BATES, 2011;ROESE, 2014;TSIROS;MITTAL, 2000). A RRT também oferece a possibilidade de expandir o conhecimento ao fornecer detalhes sobre a composição da regulação do arrependimento e conexões causais (HUFF, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

See 2 more Smart Citations

Regulação do arrependimento por meio da redução do nível da meta: comparando Maximizadores e Satisficientes

Muniz¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Regret is an important emotion in the context of decision-making and has many implications for consumer behavior. Although regret can be an inevitable outcome, it is possible to deal with it through various regulatory strategies. This research investigates one of these strategies: the strategy of decreasing the goal level, with which regret is regulated from the reassessment of the negativity of a result. Three experimental studies find that the DGL strategy effectively works in regulating individuals' post-decisional regret. In addition, the observed effect is moderated by the maximizing tendency. When maximizers engaged in the strategy of decreasing the goal level, reevaluating their decision and recognizing positive alternative goals, they more successfully regulated their regrets. For satisficers, in contrast, who are by default more likely to adopt the “good enough” protective choice, engaging in such a strategy did not affect their regrets. In addition, the perception of valid effort was observed as na important mediator useful to explain such effects. These results contribute to the literature on regret by empirically testing DGL as an effective regret regulation strategy, showing mechanisms that can help individuals to effectively cope with regret

show abstract

Do maximizing consumers engage more in conspicuous consumption?

Luan

Sun

2023

J of Consumer Behaviour

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While much of the previous research has examined the influence of consumers' social and economic states on conspicuous consumption, little attention has been paid to the potential role that consumers' decision‐making tendency plays. This study investigates whether, how, and when maximizing, as a type of decision‐making tendency (both dispositional and situationally primed), influences subsequent decisions regarding conspicuous consumption. Four studies were conducted, revealing that maximizing consumers are more likely to engage in conspicuous consumption than non‐maximizing consumers (Studies 1 and 2). The need for status serves as the underlying mechanism behind this behavior (Study 3). In addition, the observed effect holds only when the situation is public but disappears when it is private (Study 4). As one of the first investigations into the effect that maximizing has on a type of consumption, these findings offer valuable contributions to both theory and practice.

show abstract

Do maximizers maximize in private? The influence of public versus private context on maximizing

Cited by 12 publications

References 51 publications

Is satisficing really satisfying? Satisficers exhibit greater threat than maximizers during choice overload

Is satisficing really satisfying? Satisficers exhibit greater threat than maximizers during choice overload

Regulação do arrependimento por meio da redução do nível da meta: comparando Maximizadores e Satisficientes

Do maximizing consumers engage more in conspicuous consumption?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About