The Maximizing Mind-Set

Ma, Jingjing; Roese, Neal J.

doi:10.1086/674977

Cited by 88 publications

(142 citation statements)

References 80 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

136

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, the results extend recent findings suggesting that maximizing, in addition to being an individual disposition, can also be triggered by the decision context (Ma & Roese, ). By‐attribute self‐customization formats lead people to perceive that finding the best option should be easy and attainable, which in turn can activate a maximizing mindset.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…However, contrary to the notion that easier choices increase choice likelihood (Novemsky, Dhar, Schwarz, & Simonson, ; Valenzuela et al, ), the authors propose that by‐attribute self‐customization formats—despite their ease—may sometimes go awry. Specifically, if by‐attribute self‐customization formats evoke a maximizing mindset, then this choice process will have a negative effect on choice likelihood (Ma & Roese, ). Maximizing refers to people's general tendency to insist on getting the “best” instead of settling for something that is “good enough” (i.e., satisfice; Iyengar, Wells, & Schwartz, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

When self‐customization backfires: The role of a maximizing mindset

Nardini

Sela

2019

Psychology and Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Self‐customization in online shopping contexts readily offers an abundance of options for consumers. However, the sheer amount of information can quickly become overwhelming. One way to give people the freedom to choose without overwhelming them with information is to simplify the decision process by breaking it down into a series of smaller steps. Contrary to a common assumption that simpler decisions increase choice likelihood, however, this study demonstrates that a simple by‐attribute self‐customization process may activate a maximizing mindset, which increases people's desire to find better options and decreases their satisfaction with the ones available. Consequently, simplifying the self‐customization process can sometimes backfire by decreasing choice likelihood. Three studies suggest that although by‐attribute self‐customization formats are easier to choose from, compared with more complex matrix formats, they may sometimes—paradoxically—increase choice deferral. The findings suggest that a maximizing mindset mediates this effect, casting doubt on information‐based alternative explanations. The findings also suggest that whether by‐attribute self‐customization increases or decreases choice likelihood may depend on the presence of objective quality cues, which indicate that an objectively‐best option can be found. This study furthers the understanding of how decision difficulty and maximizing influence self‐customization decisions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

When self‐customization backfires: The role of a maximizing mindset

Nardini

Sela

2019

Psychology and Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Paradoxically, research suggests that although maximizers achieve objectively better decision outcomes than satisficers, they experience more negative psychological consequences, such as feeling more regret and less happiness and satisfaction with their choices (Iyengar et al, 2006;Ma & Roese, 2014;Schwartz et al, 2002). Furthermore, they are likely to change their initial choice if given the option (Chowdhury, Ratneshwar, & Mohanty, 2009) and switch to competing companies (Lai, 2011).…”

Section: -Point) On Different Dimensions For Both Liked and Dislikedmentioning

confidence: 99%

How a maximizing orientation affects trade‐offs between desirability and feasibility: The role of outcome‐ versus process‐focused decision making

Hsieh

Yalch

2019

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research examines how maximizers make decisions when they must trade‐off between desirability and feasibility attributes. Across four studies, we demonstrate that maximizers tend to prefer choices offering more desirability to those offering more feasibility and respond more favorably to a product's advertising when it highlights desirability more than feasibility attributes. Furthermore, we show that maximizers' focus on outcomes rather than processes drives their preference for desirability, such that changing from an outcome to a process focus can redirect their interest from desirability to feasibility. By contrast, satisficers do not prefer products higher in desirability to those higher in feasibility and are not more receptive to ads highlighting desirability attributes. Furthermore, because satisficers may focus on both the outcome and the process, priming either one is redundant and does not alter their preference for desirability or feasibility.

show abstract

“…Prior to making the choice, participants completed an ostensibly unrelated task, printed in different shades and fonts, that was intended to activate a satisficing or a maximizing mindset. The task, reproduced in the MDA, was adopted from Ma and Roese (2014) with some modification. In the satisficing condition, for example, a question asked, "Among the five cities, which one do you think is good enough to visit?…”

Section: Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

When one desires too much of a good thing: The compromise effect under maximizing tendencies

Mao

2015

J Consum Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The maximizing tendency denotes individuals' predisposition to look for the best option rather than settling for something that passes an internal threshold of acceptability. This research examines how maximizing affects the compromise effect: the preference for an option with relatively intermediate attribute values. Results show that maximizers attempt to maximize gains on all attributes (rather than to rely on a single, most important attribute as satisficers do) and make more compensatory tradeoffs, which leads to more often choosing a compromise option (Studies 2 & 3). Results held whether maximization was measured as an individual difference variable (Studies 1 & 2) or activated as a decision mindset (Study 3). When asked to make decisions for a (fictional) prototypical maximizer, however, people intuited fewer compromise choices (Study 4). This article concludes by discussing relevant theories on cognitive capacity, regulatory focus, and choice context effects, and by offering tangible suggestions for follow-up research.

show abstract

The Maximizing Mind-Set

Cited by 88 publications

References 80 publications

When self‐customization backfires: The role of a maximizing mindset

When self‐customization backfires: The role of a maximizing mindset

How a maximizing orientation affects trade‐offs between desirability and feasibility: The role of outcome‐ versus process‐focused decision making

When one desires too much of a good thing: The compromise effect under maximizing tendencies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About