The Decision Making Tendency Inventory: A new measure to assess maximizing, satisficing, and minimizing

Misuraca, Raffaëlla; Faraci, Palmira; Gangemi, Amelia; Carmeci, Floriana A.; Miceli, Silvana

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.043

Cited by 61 publications

(93 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Nenkov et al (2008) believe that the inadaptability of the maximizing tendency may be caused by the tendency to "seeking out and comparing among alternatives" and "experiencing decision difficulty", while the "having high standards" factor may be positive. Richardson et al (2014) and Misuraca et al (2015) studied the relationship between each factor of maximizing tendency and positive or negative emotion indicators, and the results also maintained certain consistency with the aforementioned researches. It is worth mentioning that there are researchers who have doubts about the proposition that "maximizers are less happy".…”

Section: The Maximization Paradoxsupporting

confidence: 57%

“…There are also definitions and measures which combine or split the three factors on the basis of Schwartz "s" construction. For example, Misuraca, Faraci, Gangemi, Carmeci and Miceli (2015) divided the maximizing tendency into resolute maximization and fearful maximization. The former mainly reflects the "having high standards" and "seeking out and comparing among alternative" in MS.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Study on Maximization Paradox and Its Psychological Origin

Ding¹,

Li²

2018

PSYCH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Compared with satisficers, maximizers intend to pursue optimal results, leading to more negative emotions and worse experience. Even when they do get a better result, they are still less satisfied. We call it "maximization paradox". Theoretically, the purpose of this study is to enrich and deepen research in fields of the maximization paradox and its psychological origin. What's more, we intend to provide feasible advice for corporations and the government on the basis of our findings. By reviewing existing literatures, we find that the psychological origin of this paradox includes three aspects: the uncertainty of their optimal standards, their behavioral strategies to search and compare excessively, and more cognitive biases such as expectation biases and focusing biases. These conclusions help us to better understand the maximizing tendency and make relevant suggestions for decision-makers.

show abstract

Section: The Maximization Paradoxsupporting

confidence: 57%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Study on Maximization Paradox and Its Psychological Origin

Ding¹,

Li²

2018

PSYCH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this context, the process Simon termed satisficing was considered a behavioural tendency. Drawing from Simon’s approach, Schwartz () argued that the tendency to satisfice and maximise is a global disposition or trait that characterises individuals when seeking the optimal alternative (Schwartz et al, , p. 1184): maximisers seek what is unequivocally the best option by comparing the available alternatives, whereas satisficers seek options that meet the criteria they consider important (Cheek & Schwartz, ; Misuraca, Faraci, Gangemi, Carmeci, & Miceli, ; Misuraca, Teuscher, & Carmeci, ).…”

Section: Personality and Motivated Self‐regulation In Decision‐makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do personality traits and self‐regulatory processes affect decision‐making tendencies?

Miceli

Palo

Monacis

et al. 2018

Australian Journal of Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This research attempted to clarify the role played by personality traits and self-regulated motivation in affecting decision-making tendencies. Method: Study 1 (n = 209) examined whether the Big Five personality traits predict minimising, maximising, and satisficing tendencies; Study 2 (n = 460) tested the mediating role of self-regulatory orientations in the relationship between personality traits and decision-making tendencies by performing structural equation modelling with latent variables. Results: Conscientiousness emerged as the strongest positive predictor of maximising, whereas openness to experience, conscientiousness, and agreeableness emerged as negative predictors of satisficing. As for the mediational model, both locomotion and assessment played a role in mediating the relationships between the personality traits and decision-making tendencies. Conclusions: This research provided interesting insights into the underlying motivations and strategies that lead individuals to maximise, satisfice, or minimise.

show abstract

“…This resulted in, among other things, the development of the Maximizing Scale (MS). Other scales that have been developed include the short form of the MS of Nenkov et al (), the MTS of Diab et al, the Maximization Inventory Scale of Turner, Rim, Betz, and Nygren (), the seven‐item MTS of Dalal et al (), and the Decision Making Tendency Inventory of Misuraca, Faraci, Gangemi, Carmeci, and Miceli (; for an overview of the measurement scales, see Cheek & Schwartz, ). Within the maximization literature, there is a debate regarding the proper measurement of the maximizing tendency (Cheek & Schwartz, ).…”

Section: Maximizing Tendency Scalementioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is only one of the measurement scales that have been developed in the maximization literature to measure people's tendency to maximize in choice and decision making. In fact, building on Herbert Simon's (1955Simon's ( , 1956 the seven-item MTS of Dalal et al (2015), and the Decision Making Tendency Inventory of Misuraca, Faraci, Gangemi, Carmeci, and Miceli (2015; for an overview of the measurement scales, see Cheek & Schwartz, 2016). Within the maximization literature, there is a debate regarding the proper measurement of the maximizing tendency (Cheek & Schwartz, 2016).…”

Section: Maximizing Tendency Scalementioning

confidence: 99%

Maximizing, choice freedom, and duration judgments in choice making

Rogge

2017

J of Consumer Behaviour

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines (a) whether people are less accurate in judging choice time as choice tasks involve more choice options, more choice information, or a combination of both and (b) whether people with a higher tendency to look for the best option in choice making (maximizers) have less accurate duration judgments of choice time as compared to people who are more easily settling for a choice outcome that is satisfactory (satisficers). A multilevel analysis is used to explore the relationships of interest using data collected through a series of choice tasks. In general, the results suggest that people seem to misjudge time durations when making choices. Moreover, empirical evidence demonstrates that people with an outspoken tendency to maximize in choice making do not differ significantly in estimating choice time accurately as compared to people who experience almost no need to maximize.

show abstract

The Decision Making Tendency Inventory: A new measure to assess maximizing, satisficing, and minimizing

Cited by 61 publications

References 14 publications

A Study on Maximization Paradox and Its Psychological Origin

A Study on Maximization Paradox and Its Psychological Origin

Do personality traits and self‐regulatory processes affect decision‐making tendencies?

Maximizing, choice freedom, and duration judgments in choice making

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About