Maximization Paradox: Result of Believing in an Objective Best

Luan, Mo; Hong, Li

doi:10.1177/0146167217695552

Cited by 22 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, they contribute to the growing literature examining moderators of maximizers' satisfaction with their choices, such as reversible versus irreversible choices (Shiner 2015) or maximization goals versus strategy (Hughes and Scholer 2017). Second, they converge with recent studies showing that maximizers' choice satisfaction is undermined by a high responsiveness to normative concerns, such as choosing the objectively best option (Luan and Li 2017a), and external influences, such as comparing one's choices with others' choices (Weaver et al 2015). The current research suggests one way to remedy this.…”

Section: Theoretical and Practical Contributionsmentioning

confidence: 57%

When the purpose lies within: Maximizers and satisfaction with autotelic choices

Kokkoris

2017

Mark Lett

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Are maximizers less satisfied with their choices than satisficers? This research provides a novel perspective on this question by distinguishing between two types of consumer goals: autotelic, when choice is a goal in itself, and instrumental, when a choice is a means to achieving other goals. Study 1 showed that maximizers value autotelic experiences more than satisficers. Study 2 experimentally manipulated the choice goal and found that maximizers compared to satisficers experience higher choice satisfaction when the choice goal is autotelic rather than instrumental. Additionally, evidence is provided for the underlying mechanism (perceived ease of choice) as well as downstream consequences (consumers' willingness to pay for their chosen option). These findings advance a conceptualization of maximizers as consumers seeking self-contained meaning in choice and provide new insights into the relation between maximizing and choice satisfaction. Theoretical and practical implications for consumer decision-making are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical and Practical Contributionsmentioning

confidence: 57%

When the purpose lies within: Maximizers and satisfaction with autotelic choices

Kokkoris

2017

Mark Lett

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In fact, maximizers are satisfied with their decisions less often than satisficers (Chowdhury et al, 2009; Iyengar et al, 2006; Schwartz et al, 2002). Sacrificing time and effort to attain more options that ultimately lead to decreased satisfaction is known as the “Maximization Paradox” (Dar-Nimrod et al, 2009; Luan & Li, 2017). Interestingly, although maximizers experience less satisfaction, they often make better objective decisions.…”

Section: Maximizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of the Revised Relational Maximization Scale and explorations of how relational maximization relates to personal and relational outcomes

Mikkelson

Ray

2020

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cheek and Schwartz argued for conceptualizing maximization as the goal of “choosing the best” coupled with the strategy of “alternative search.” Using this conceptualization, we conducted five studies (Total N = 1,617) to revise the Relational Maximization Scale. Two exploratory factor analyses (Exploratory Study and Study 1) confirmed that choosing the best and alternative search were empirically distinct. A confirmatory factor analysis (Study 2) demonstrated the strength of the factor structure for these two dimensions. Study 2 results also indicated that choosing the best correlated with rational and intuitive decision-making styles, whereas alternative search correlated with indecisive, avoidant, and intuitive decision-making styles. In Study 3, choosing the best was positively related to relational outcomes (e.g., satisfaction, commitment, and trust), whereas alternative search was negatively related to relational outcomes. Study 4 demonstrated that alternative search and the quality of alternatives were empirically distinct. Study 4 also showed that choosing the best was positively related to life satisfaction and optimism, whereas alternative search was positively related to regret and negatively related to optimism. Together, these studies validate the importance of examining domain-specific maximization in ongoing relationships and offer a new Revised Relational Maximization Scale. Specifically, we propose that the choosing the best subscale be used as a measure of the maximization goal and that the alternative search subscale be used as a measure of the maximization strategy.

show abstract

“…Studies have examined the mechanisms of this negative relationship. In sum, a series of cognitive biases are helpful to understand this paradox, including a belief in an objective best ( Luan and Li, 2017 ), higher cost ( Iyengar et al, 2006 ), higher expectation ( Dar-Nimrod et al, 2009 ), and loss aversion ( Polman, 2010 ). Additionally, the low ability to handle dissonant experience is a key point.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Positive Side of Maximization: Linking Maximization Tendency With Meaning in Life Through Time Perspectives

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The negative influence of maximization on well-being, that is, the maximization paradox, has received increased attention. However, few studies have shown the link between maximization tendency and meaning in life, which is one type of well-being, and no empirical literature has examined the mechanisms between them. We conducted an online survey in China to test the relationship between maximization tendency and meaning in life. Participants (N=2,987) were invited to report their maximization, time perspective, meaning in life, and other control variables and demographic variables. Multi-mediation path analysis was adopted in the data analysis. The results revealed that maximization was positively associated with meaning in life, which confirmed the positive aspect of the maximization tendency. Further analyses indicated that the time perspectives of past-positive and future mediated the positive relationship between maximization and meaning in life. In contrast, a present-fatalistic time perspective was a suppressor in the positive relationship. Our findings suggest that the maximization tendency has a positive aspect rather than the overall maximization paradox. An important means of elevating meaning in life is to encourage the time perspective of past-positive and future-oriented and reduce the present-fatalistic time perspective.

show abstract

Maximization Paradox: Result of Believing in an Objective Best

Cited by 22 publications

References 33 publications

When the purpose lies within: Maximizers and satisfaction with autotelic choices

When the purpose lies within: Maximizers and satisfaction with autotelic choices

Development of the Revised Relational Maximization Scale and explorations of how relational maximization relates to personal and relational outcomes

The Positive Side of Maximization: Linking Maximization Tendency With Meaning in Life Through Time Perspectives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About