The way of making choices: maximizing and satisficing and its relationship to well- being, personality, and self-rumination

Abstract

<p>The current age is characterized by having too many options. Decision-making is harder when there are numerous options to choose from. However, having a large number of options is not necessarily a problem for everyone and in this context, maximizing and satisficing tendencies are described. Yet, there is a debate about the effect of these tendencies on well-being and it has to be asked as to whether maximizing and satisficing have an adaptive or maladaptive effect on our well-being. Moreover, it raises questions regarding the conceptualization and measurement of maximizing and satisficing tendencies. In a sample of 480 subjects from the general population, a two-component model of maximizing was examined. The results show that the two-component model (maximizing as a strategy and maximizing as a goal) is an efficient way to measure maximizing tendency. The results show that maximizing as a strategy (measured as alternative search) was maladaptive (was positively related to depression and negatively related to happiness), whereas maximizing as a goal (measured as high standards) had no maladaptive effect (was not related to well-being at all). In addition, the two components were differently associated with personality factors which strengthen the need for measuring maximizing as a two-component model. In the current study, it was found that even though great effort was invested in studying maximizing tendency, satisficing tendency stayed behind and its conceptualization and measurement are unclear. Therefore, the (mal)adaptive effect of these tendencies depends on their conceptualization as well as on how these tendencies are measured, and also on their different relationship with personality factors.</p>

‘Crying over spilt milk?’ Effect of post‐consumption dissonance on coping behaviour for online purchases

“…This shows that maximizers rely on external sources of information to mitigate their dissonance (Iyengar et al., 2006). Further, both satisficers and maximizers experiencing negative emotions from choice decisions prefer to mentally disengage as they attempt to shed the worry about their decision (Vargová et al., 2020).…”

Choice as a Meaning-Making Device for Maximizers: Evidence From Reactance to Restrictions of Choice Freedom During Lockdown

“…Consequently, they are ready to take action when their freedom of choice is threatened. An ongoing debate in the maximizing literature is whether maximizing is beneficial or detrimental for well-being (e.g., Kokkoris, 2016;Vargová et al, 2020). What can the current finding about the association of maximizing with search for meaning tell us about this?…”

Maximizing–satisficing and medical maximizing–minimizing are related but distinct dispositions.

“…These three factors were labeled high standards, alternative search, and decision difficulty (Nenkov et al, 2008). The high standards dimension is now often referred to as maximizing as a goal, and alternative search is referred to as maximizing as a strategy (Cheek & Schwartz, 2016; Vargova et al, 2020). Perhaps the most straightforward way to characterize how the three dimensions are related to each other is that the maximizer’s goal is to obtain the best decision outcome, one strategy used to obtain the best outcome is to consider many possibilities when making decisions, and one consequence of considering many possibilities and having high standards is decisional difficulty (Cheek & Schwartz, 2016).…”

“…Some scholars have argued that maximizing as a goal is the only dimension that should be considered central to the theory, while others have argued that both goal-maximizing and strategy-maximizing are central (Cheek & Schwartz, 2016; Dalal et al, 2015). Complicating matters, there remains a question about whether maximizing and satisficing are opposite ends of the same continuum or not (Cheek & Schwartz, 2016; Nenkov et al, 2008; Vargova et al, 2020), and whether satisficing itself is one or multiple strategies (Nenkov et al, 2008). For example, Misuraca et al made a distinction between maximizing, satisficing, and minimizing, wherein maximizers strive for the best decisions, satisficers set a few criteria that they think are important, and minimizers settle for mediocrity and are not particularly interested in the quality of their decisions (Misuraca et al, 2015).…”