Maximizing versus satisficing

Overview

The distinction between maximizing and satisficing was introduced by Simon (1955, 1956, 1957). These constructs represent two different strategies to choose an option from a set of possible alternatives. Individuals who maximize consider all possibilities comprehensively and strive to select the best option. These individuals, for example, frequently switch to other radio or TV stations, even when reasonably satisfied with the current program, to ensure they are exposed to the best alternative. Likewise, these individuals will scan the entire menu at a restaurant, often several times, to choose the best meal.

Individuals who satisfice, however, merely seeks an alterative that exceeds some criterion of acceptability. Once they identify an acceptable option, they discontinie their search. For example, these individuals will commit to a TV program, when reasonably satisfied, even if they have not considered all the alternatives. These individuals, called satisficers, do not pursue the goal to optimize every decision.

Consequences

Wellbeing

Maximizers pursue the goal to optimize every decision (Schwartz, Ward, Monterosso, Lyubomirsky, White, & Lehman, 2002). If many different options are available, this goal is difficult to fulfil. The failure to achieve goals promotes dissatisfaction, even if their choices are reasonable.

Hence, satisficing is more likely than maximizing to be associated with satisfaction and wellbeing. For example, in one study (Iyengar, Wells, & Schwartz, 2006), individuals who had recently completed university or college were encouraged to search for jobs through a career service. Several months later, maximizers, as gauged by the scale developed by Schwartz, Ward, Monterosso, Lyubomirsky, White, and Lehman (2002), were less inclined to be satisfied with their choice. In addition, maxmizers are more inclined to experience regret and depression rather than life satisfaction and optimism (Schwartz et al., 2002).

Performance

Maximizing, although inversely related to wellbeing, is sometimes positively related to performance. For example, in the study on recent graduates, conducted by Iyengar, Wells, and Schwartz (2006), maximizers were more likely to have secured jobs with an elevated, rather than modest, salary than were satisficers. Regardless, maximizers were less satisfied with their job.

Evaluation

Maximizers, as gauged by the scale developed by Schwartz, Ward, Monterosso, Lyubomirsky, White, and Lehman (2002), are more inclined to compare their decisions with the choices of other individuals. That is, as a consequence of their need to optimise their purchases and behaviour, they often compare their own products, status, ability, and so forth with the outcomes that other individuals generate. Hence, they are more likely to recognise instances in which another person has purchased superior goods or performed more effectively, ultimately promoting depression.

In addition, maximizers are more likely to demonstrate option fixation (Iyengar, Wells, & Schwartz, 2006): in which they fantasize about options that differ from the alternatives they are actually pursuing and wish they could pursue more options. Futhermore, they are more inclined to seek advice from experts, family, and friends.

Preferences

To optimize their outcomes, maximizers need to identify, understand, and explore every possible option and alternative; otherwise, they fear they might experience regret if they select an option they later recognise is not ideal (Schwartz, Ward, Monterosso, Lyubomirsky, White, & Lehman, 2002). Accordingly, these individuals experience significant stress when many options are available, because the likelihood they could regret their decision rises.

Causes of maximzing versus satisficing

The context can affect whether or not participants will tend to maximize or satisfice. For example, Holbrook, Green, and Krosnick (2003) showed that respondents to surveys are more likely to demonstrate manifestations of satisficing when they engage in telephone interviews rather than face-to-face interviewers. Nevertheless, few studies have explored the antecedents to these strategies (but see Fu & Gray, 2006).

Measures

Schwartz, Ward, Monterosso, Lyubomirsky, White, and Lehman (2002) developed a scale that assesses the extent to which individuals engage in behaviors that manifest a tendency to maximize. Participants specify the extent to which they agree or disagree with 13 statements, although some authors use only 11 of these items (e.g., Iyengar, Wells, & Schwartz, 2006). Typical items include: