1 Introduction: Maximizing and satisficing
In the last two decades, much attention has been paid to the adaptive nature of maximizing and satisficing tendencies. Reference Schwartz, Ward, Monterosso, Lyubomirsky, White and LehmanSchwartz et al. (2002) distinguish between “maximizing” and “satisficing”. Maximizing tendency is the effort to select the best option, and satisficing tendency is the willingness to settle for a sufficient or “fairly good” option. Despite maximizers being able to objectively make better decisions than satisficers, satisficers feel subjectively better (Reference Álvarez, Rey and SanchisÁlvarez, Rey & Sanchis, 2014). Maximizers are not able to experience happiness, compared to satisficers. Apparently, the tendency to find the best options can be maladaptive. It can contribute to a lower experience of happiness, subjective well-being and a higher incidence of depressive symptoms (Reference Schwartz, Ward, Monterosso, Lyubomirsky, White and LehmanSchwartz et al., 2002). Maximizers are portrayed as unhappy and exhausted from the constant search for the best option (Reference Diab, Gillespie and HighhouseDiab, Gillespie & Highhouse, 2008). Yet, there also seems to be a way of measuring the maximizing tendency that may not show maximizers as being less happy or depressed. Rather, maximizers could be more motivated and subjectively much more satisfied because of the high goals they are able to achieve through this tendency (Reference Bubić and ErcegBubić & Erceg, 2018). Maximizers can experience more success due to the higher maximizing tendency (Reference Dalal, Diab, Zhu and HwangDalal et al., 2015) and success can in turn make them happier (Reference Lyubomirsky, King and DienerLyubomirsky, King & Diener, 2005).
The original theory suggests that the maximizing tendency is maladaptive while the satisficing tendency is adaptive (Reference Schwartz, Ward, Monterosso, Lyubomirsky, White and LehmanSchwartz et al., 2002); maximizers are apparently less happy (or more depressed) than satisficers. However, others have sugested that Reference Schwartz, Ward, Monterosso, Lyubomirsky, White and LehmanSchwartz et al. (2002) did not provide an exact definition of these constructs and that maximizers could be as happy as satisficers with a different definition of maximizing (Reference Diab, Gillespie and HighhouseDiab et al., 2008; Reference Dalal, Diab, Zhu and HwangDalal et al., 2015). In the theories of maximizing (vs. satisficing), several issues are still unclear: a) the anchoring of the theory and conceptual model as well as measurement; b) the relationship between maximizing/satisficing and well-being (e.g., happiness and depression); c) the relationships between satisficing, maximizing and other variables that important to both well-being and decision making.
1.1 Conceptual model and measuring of maximizing and satisficing
There is no consensus regarding how satisficing and maximizing should be conceptualized and measured. As a result, there are some other issues that need to be addressed:
-
• It has been suggested that maximizing and satisficing tendencies constitute a continuum. By this view, these tendencies are measured through one tool where a high score indicates maximizing and a low score indicates satisficing (Reference Schwartz, Ward, Monterosso, Lyubomirsky, White and LehmanSchwartz et al., 2002; Reference Nenkov, Morrin, Schwartz, Ward and HullandNenkov et al., 2008; Reference Diab, Gillespie and HighhouseDiab et al., 2008; Reference LaiLai, 2010; Reference Weinhardt, Morse, Chimeli and FisherWeinhardt et al., 2012; Reference Richardson, Ye, Ege, Suh and RiceRichardson et al., 2014; Reference Dalal, Diab, Zhu and HwangDalal et al., 2015). However, others have suggested that maximizing and satisficing tendencies are two separate variables. Therefore, they should be measured by two different measures or subscales.
-
• There is also disagreement about how the maximizing tendency should be operationalized. It has been suggested that maximizing consists of high standards, alternative searches and decision difficulties (Reference Schwartz, Ward, Monterosso, Lyubomirsky, White and LehmanSchwartz et al., 2002; Reference Nenkov, Morrin, Schwartz, Ward and HullandNenkov et al., 2008). While some researchers exclude decision difficulties (Reference Diab, Gillespie and HighhouseDiab et al., 2008; Reference LaiLai, 2010), others think that high standards should not be part of maximizing (Reference Turner, Rim, Betz and NygrenTurner et al., 2012; Reference Ďuriník, Procházka and CíglerĎuriník, Procházka & Cígler, 2018). Reference Richardson, Ye, Ege, Suh and RiceRichardson et al. (2014) have added regret as part of maximizing. Reference Dalal, Diab, Zhu and HwangDalal et al. (2015) exclude alternative searches and decision difficulties because they suggest it is an outcome of maximizing rather than being part of it.
Thus, the way of measuring maximizing and satisficing can be crucial. There could be a difference when these tendencies are measured as a continuum, through one measure that consists of high standards, alternative searches and decision difficulties, or when one or two of these parts are excluded, or when these parts are measured separately.
These problems explain the mismatch between the claims as to whether the maximizing tendency is maladaptive or not. In this regard, Reference Cheek and SchwartzCheek and Schwartz (2016) have suggested that maximizing should be viewed as a two-component model consisting of maximizing as a goal and maximizing as a strategy. They go on to say that maximizing as a goal is characterized as high standards and is not maladaptive while maximizing as a strategy is characterized as an alternative search and is maladaptive. This is because maximizing as a goal is characterized as the effort to apply high standards. However, maximizing as a strategy is characterized as an exhausting effort to compare the huge amount of possibilities during decision-making. Reference Cheek and SchwartzCheek and Schwartz (2016) have also suggested that, if researchers want to measure satisficing separately, they should use less ambitious satisficing subscale from DMTI (Decision Making Tendency Inventory; Reference Misuraca, Faraci, Gangemi, Carmeci and MiceliMisuraca et al., 2015) because its items best represent a satisficing tendency. The current study tries to address these inconsistencies by measuring the satisficing and maximizing separately and measuring maximizing as a strategy and as a goal.
1.2 Maximizing and satisficing and its relationship to well-being
According to several studies (e.g., Reference Schwartz, Ward, Monterosso, Lyubomirsky, White and LehmanSchwartz et al., 2002; Reference Nenkov, Morrin, Schwartz, Ward and HullandNenkov et al., 2008; Reference Diab, Gillespie and HighhouseDiab et al., 2008; Reference LaiLai, 2010; Reference Rim, Turner, Betz and NygrenRim et al., 2011; Reference Turner, Rim, Betz and NygrenTurner et al., 2012; Reference Weinhardt, Morse, Chimeli and FisherWeinhardt et al., 2012; Reference Mikkelson and PauleyMikkelson & Pauley, 2013; Reference Richardson, Ye, Ege, Suh and RiceRichardson et al., 2014; Reference Misuraca, Faraci, Gangemi, Carmeci and MiceliMisuraca et al., 2015; Reference Dalal, Diab, Zhu and HwangDalal et al., 2015; Reference Cheek and SchwartzCheek & Schwartz, 2016; Reference RimRim, 2017; Reference Ďuriník, Procházka and CíglerĎuriník et al., 2018), the relationship between satisficing and maximizing and well-being is not clear. Some authors (Reference Schwartz, Ward, Monterosso, Lyubomirsky, White and LehmanSchwartz et al., 2002; Reference Rim, Turner, Betz and NygrenRim et al., 2011; Reference Turner, Rim, Betz and NygrenTurner et al., 2012; Reference RimRim, 2017; Reference Ďuriník, Procházka and CíglerĎuriník et al., 2018) suggest that maximizing is maladaptive while other authors (Reference Nenkov, Morrin, Schwartz, Ward and HullandNenkov et al., 2008; Reference Diab, Gillespie and HighhouseDiab et al., 2008; Reference LaiLai, 2010; Reference Dalal, Diab, Zhu and HwangDalal et al., 2015) have found that maximizing is not maladaptive. As described above, the way of measuring these tendencies appears to be crucial. Reference Hughes and ScholerHughes and Scholer (2017) also stressed that, for evaluating the maladaptive or adaptive effect of maximizing, it is necessary to distinguish between maximizing as a goal and maximizing as a strategy. The way of measuring (in terms of the chosen measurement) may have contributed to the fact that the maximizing tendency is related differently to the same variables across several studies. Differing measurements could also lead to inconsistent conclusions about whether the tendency to maximize is maladaptive or not.
Apart from obvious contradictions in results due to various ways of measurement and conceptualization, there is also evidence about cultural differences in relationships between maximizing and well-being (Reference Cheek and SchwartzCheek & Schwartz, 2016). Specifically, maximizing tendency is expected to be more maladaptive in societies for which abundance of personal choice is highly valued and for which it is considered as the way to happiness (Reference Roets, Schwartz and GuanRoets, Schwartz & Guan, 2012). In addition, these tendencies can be differently associated with well-being across culture and when different types of measures are used (Reference Oishi, Tsutsui, Eggleston and GalinhaOishi et al., 2014).
1.3 The present study
The current study aimed to adopt a two-component model of maximizing in an effort to provide insight into contradictory findings about (mal)adaptive effect of maximizing tendency. We also examined the nature of satisficing tendency if measured separately from maximizing tendency. In addition, we also asked how these tendencies are related to personality (specifically neuroticism and extraversion) and self-rumination. These variables were measured in this study because all of them seem to play a role in decision-making (Reference Byrne, Silasi-Mansat and WorthyByrne, Silasi-Mansat & Worthy, 2015; Reference Lauriola and LevinLauriola & Levin, 2001; Reference Dewberry, Juanchich and NarendranDewberry, Juanchich & Narendran, 2013; Reference Van Randenborgh, de Jong-Meyer and Hüffmeiervan Randenborgh, de Jong-Meyer & Hüffmeier, 2009), while neuroticism and extraversion were analyzed in previous studies focused on maximizing as well as satisficing (e.g., Reference Weinhardt, Morse, Chimeli and FisherWeinhardt et al., 2012; Reference Dalal, Diab, Zhu and HwangDalal et al., 2015; Reference Misuraca, Faraci, Gangemi, Carmeci and MiceliMisuraca et al., 2015; Reference Purvis, Howell and IyerPurvis, Howell & Iyer, 2011; Reference Miceli, de Palo, Monacis, Di Nuovo and SinatraMiceli et al., 2018).
For the purposes of the present study, we defined the focal concepts as follows. Self-rumination is characterized by the inability to get rid of thoughts related to a person’s decisions (Reference Williams, Grisham, Erskine and CassedyWilliams et al., 2011; Reference Palomäki, Laakasuo and SalmelaPalomäki, Laakasuo & Salmela, 2013). Maximizers have been characterized by having a greater inability to get rid of thinking about decisions and options. Self-rumination could make the process of thinking about decisions and options more intense, leading to negative affect. Neuroticism is a personality trait characterized by anxious feelings, fear or depressed mood negatively affecting the decision-making process (Reference Jalajas and PullaroJalajas & Pullaro, 2018). Extraversion is characterized by talkativeness, enthusiasm or conviviality and has a positive effect in the context of decision-making (Reference Purvis, Howell and IyerPurvis et al., 2011).
We hypothesize that satisficing tendency would be an adaptive decision-making tendency, implying that satisficing will positively correlated with happiness and negatively correlated with depression. In the context of two components, we hypothesize that maximizing as a strategy would be more maladaptive than maximizing as a goal. In addition, we hypothesize that maximizing measured as a two-component model would be related to personality and self-rumination in a different way. In addition, the current study may shed light on the generalizability of findings about maximizing (as a two-component model) and satisficing tendencies in a new cultural context, where it had not yet been examined, in East European countries.
2 Method
2.0.1 Subjects
The sample was made up of 514 subjects from the general population in Slovakia (110 men and 397 women, two subjects do not state their gender) aged between 14 and 62 (M = 27; SD = 9.88). The data collection was carried out face-to-face (n = 90) as well as online (n = 424). Most of the subjects were in a relationship (n = 221), single (n = 182), married (n = 90), divorced (14). Education: high school (n = 241), university (n = 250), primary school (n = 12). The face-to-face data collection took place among employees at the unemployment office and among employees at high school. The online data collection was done through popular social network groups on Facebook (3 social groups were addressed, 2 with about 100,000 members and one with about 15,000 members). The members of these social network groups are mainly undergraduates. The a priori sample size was not computed but the effectiveness of the used sample size was checked by a sensitivity analysis (computed by G*Power calculator). Given by alpha level 0.05, power 0.8, it was found that N = 514 is enough to find the effect size r = 0.11.
2.1 Measures
The measurements of the maximizing and satisficing tendencies were chosen based on the suggestion of the authors Reference Cheek and SchwartzCheek & Schwartz (2016). We decide to apply their conceptual two-component model to measure maximizing tendency. We also decide to measure the satisficing tendency as a separate construct. According to Reference Cheek and SchwartzCheek & Schwartz (2016), the MTS-7 accurately reflects the concept of maximizing as a goal. Also, according to them the subscale of MI – the alternative search subscale, best represents the maximizing as a strategy. In addition, the items from the “less ambitious satisficing” subscale represent the concept of satisficing more accurately in contrast to other measures/subscales for measuring satisficing separately.
MTS-7 — 7-item Maximizing Tendency Scale
(Reference Dalal, Diab, Zhu and HwangDalal et al., 2015) was used to measure the tendency of maximizing as a goal (Reference Cheek and SchwartzCheek & Schwartz, 2016). It consists of 7 items (e.g.: “No matter what I do, I have the highest standards for myself.”, or “I don’t like having to settle for good enough.”; McDonald’s ω = 0.85; α = 0.77) focused on measuring high standards. Subjects respond to every item using a 5-point scale – from 1-strongly disagree to 5-strongly agree. Dalal et al. (2015) argue that a higher level of MTS-7 reflects higher high standards which create a maximizing tendency. A lower level of MTS-7 reflects lower high standards.
MI — Maximization Inventory
– and its subscale – the alternative search subscale (Reference Turner, Rim, Betz and NygrenTurner et al., 2012) was used to measure maximizing tendency as a strategy (Reference Cheek and SchwartzCheek & Schwartz, 2016). The MI consists of three subscales to measure alternative search, decision difficulty and satisficing. The alternative search subscale consists of 12 items (e.g.: “I usually continue to search for an item until it reaches my expectations.”, or “I find myself going to many different stores before finding the thing I want.”; ω = 0.89; α = 0.86). Subjects respond to every item on a 5-point Likert scale – from 1-strongly disagree to 5-strongly agree. A higher level in the MI-alternative search subscale reflects a higher alternative search in the decision-making process.
DMTI — Decision Making Tendency Inventory
– consists of 6 subscales. It serves to measure maximizing (resolute maximizing; fearful maximizing), satisficing (less ambitious satisficing; more ambitious satisficing) and minimizing (parsimonious minimizing; indolent minimizing) tendencies. In the present study the less ambitious satisficing subscale (Reference Misuraca, Faraci, Gangemi, Carmeci and MiceliMisuraca et al., 2015) was used to measure the satisficing tendency (Reference Cheek and SchwartzCheek & Schwartz, 2016). It consists of 4 items (e.g.: “If I am happy with my work, I do not seek better opportunities.”, or “When I watch TV or listen to the radio, I tend to follow the first program that I find interesting.”; ω = 0.61; α = 0.57). Subjects respond to every item using a 5-point scale from 1-strongly disagree to 5-strongly agree. A higher score reflects higher less ambitious satisficing.
BFI44 — Big Five Inventory-44
(Reference John and SrivastavaJohn & Srivastava, 1999) — consists of 5 subscales to measure a personality. We used two. They showed good psychometric properties in a population similar to our sample in Czechia (Reference Hřebíčková, Jelínek, Blatný, Brom, Burešová, Graf and ZábrodskáHřebíčková et al., 2016). The subscales extraversion (e.g.: “…is outgoing, sociable”; ω = 0.91; α = 0.86) and neuroticism (e.g.: “...gets nervous easily”; ω = 0.89; α = 0.87) were used to measure personality traits. Both subscales consist of 8 items. Subjects respond to every item on a 5-point Likert scale – from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A higher score reflects a higher level of neuroticism, and vice versa. Scoring is the same in extraversion.
SHS — Subjective Happiness Scale
(Reference Lyubomirsky and LepperLyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999) was used to measure happiness. It consists of 4 items (e.g.: “In general, I consider myself: from 1- not a very happy person to 7-a very happy person”, or “Compared to most of my peers, I consider myself: from 1-less happy to 7-more happy”; ω = 0.87; α = 0.84) which measure subjective happiness. Subjects respond to every item on a 7-point Likert scale. A higher score reflects a higher level of happiness.
BDI-II — Beck Depression Inventory
(Reference Beck, Steer and BrownBeck, Steer & Brown, 1996) measures the presence and severity of depressive symptoms. It consists of 21 items (ω = 0.93; α = 0.92) characterized by 4–5 assertions and 4 grades that evaluate the problem. Every item can have a score from 0 to 3 by choosing one of the statements. One example of the item to measure the intensity of crying as a symptom is: 0 (“I don’t cry any more than usual.”), 1 (“I cry more now than I used to.”), 2 (“I cry all the time now.”) or 3 (“I used to be able to cry, but now I can’t cry even though I want to.”). An example of items to measure feelings of failure is: 0 (“I do not feel like a failure.“), 1 (“I feel I have failed more than the average person.”), 2 (“As I look back on my life, all I can see is a lot of failures.”) or 3 (“I feel I am a complete failure as a person.”). A higher score reflects a higher level of depression.
RRQ — Rumination-Reflection Questionnaire
(Reference Trapnell and CampbellTrapnell & Campbell, 1999) measures self-reflection and self-rumination. The self-rumination scale was used in the present study. It consists of 12 items (e.g.: “My attention is often focused on aspects of myself I wish I’d stop thinking about.”, or “I always seem to be “re-hashing” in my mind recent things I’ve said or done.”; ω = 0.93; α = 0.91). Subjects respond to every item using a 5-point Likert scale - from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A higher score reflects a higher level of self-rumination.
2.2 Procedure
The questionnaire did not contain any forced questions. Subjects could leave out some questions or part of the data collection. The subjects confirmed their voluntary participation by filling in the socio-demographic questionnaire. At the end of the data collection, there was a short, written debriefing. Subjects were provided with contact details in case they wanted some additional information or if they felt any distress after some questions. The data was collected between January and March 2019.
2.3 Data Analysis
The data were analyzed in R (R core team, 2018). The code and data are available in the supplementary materials. Subjects with more than 80% missing values were excluded from any analysis (N = 9). After this exclusion, the missingness was about 0.4%. The missing values were imputed by using multiple imputation methods with a minimum of 5 imputations (Reference RubinRubin, 1987) and at least 10 iterations per imputation (Reference Reiter and RaghunathanReiter & Raghunathan, 2007), with the package MICE (Reference van Buuren and Groothuis-Oudshoornvan Buuren & Groothuis-Oudshoorn, 2011). Descriptive statistics and correlations were computed on every imputed dataset and pooled estimates are reported. For correlations between maximizing, satisficing and other variables we also computed Bayes factor for correlation with BayesFactor (Reference Morey, Rouder, Jamil, Urbanek, Forner and LyMorey et al., 2018). In exploratory analysis (see supplementary materials), the regression models with interactions were estimated.Footnote 1
3 Results
3.1 Descriptive analysis
The descriptive statistics can be seen in Table 1.
3.2 Analysis of relationship
Table 2 shows the relationships (Pearson’s correlations) between maximizing, satisficing, well-being, personality and self-rumination. Maximizing as a strategy was positively correlated with neuroticism, self-rumination, and depression, and negatively correlated with extraversion and happiness. According to a Bayes-factor estimation, there is extreme evidence that maximizing as a strategy and self-rumination are positively related, strong evidence that maximizing as a strategy and neuroticism are positively related, moderate evidence that maximizing as strategy and depression are positively related, and anecdotal evidence that maximizing as a strategy and happiness are negatively related, and anecdotal evidence that maximizing as a strategy and extraversion are not related.
Note. The values in square brackets indicate the 95% confidence interval for each correlation.
* indicates p < .05
** indicates p < .01
*** p < .001
In the diagonal are values for reliability – Guttman’s Lambda (lambda 2). On the right side from the diagonal are Bayes factors for correlation (BF10). NA means that Bayes factor was not computed for this correlation.
Maximizing as a goal was positively related to extraversion and self-rumination but was not related to well-being. By Bayes-factors, there is extreme evidence that maximizing as a goal and extraversion are positively related, and moderate evidence that maximizing as a goal and self-rumination are positively related.
Identified relationships between maximizing as a strategy, maximizing as a goal and personality and well-being represent small effect size. According to confidence intervals these estimates are relatively accurate. Lastly, satisficing was not related to personality and well-being, nor to maximizing. Also, according to a Bayes-factor there is moderate evidence that satisficing is not related to any examined variables.
4 Discussion
In this study, maximizing was measured as a two-component model: as a goal and as a strategy (Reference Cheek and SchwartzCheek & Schwartz, 2016). In addition, satisficing was measured separately from maximizing (Reference Misuraca, Faraci, Gangemi, Carmeci and MiceliMisuraca et al., 2015; Reference Turner, Rim, Betz and NygrenTurner et al., 2012). This study found that in the context of well-being, only maximizing as a strategy was related to well-being. Specifically, maximizing as a strategy was positively related to depression and negatively related to happiness. The other decision-making tendencies (maximizing as a goal, satisficing) and well-being were not related. On the other hand, in the context of personality, it was found that maximizing (as a goal and also as a strategy) was related to various personality traits and self-rumination, but in different ways. Results also show that satisficing tendency in the current study was not related to anything.
Reference Cheek and SchwartzCheek and Schwartz (2016) have suggested that maximizing as a strategy (measured as an alternative search) could be maladaptive. According to the findings of the current study, this could be true. Maximizing as a strategy (Reference Cheek and SchwartzCheek & Schwartz, 2016) is characterized by search for alternatives, which, in turn, is accompanied by a constant comparison of options (Reference Schwartz, Ward, Monterosso, Lyubomirsky, White and LehmanSchwartz et al., 2002; Reference Turner, Rim, Betz and NygrenTurner et al., 2012), a process that could be stressful. The current study found that maximizing as a strategy was positively related to neuroticism and depression and negatively related to happiness. Thus, these findings support the claims that maximizing is a maladaptive decision-making tendency which has a negative effect on well-being (Reference Schwartz, Ward, Monterosso, Lyubomirsky, White and LehmanSchwartz et al., 2002). However, given the results of this study, it is appropriate to pay attention to how maximizing is measured. Maximizing as a strategy was positively related to neuroticism and depression, and negatively related to happiness and extraversion. Maximizing as a goal was not significantly related to well-being and was positively related to extraversion and negatively related to neuroticism. However, the latter correlation was weak and insignificant. Maximizing as a strategy was also more strongly related to self-rumination than was maximizing as a goal. According to these results, we suggest that it is meaningful to differentiate between maximizing as a goal and maximizing as a strategy.
However, while these results support the claim that distinguishing maximization as a two-component model is useful, the results also provide an insight into the differentiation of the maximizing components in a new cultural context. Concerning maximizing tendency, several studies point to the cultural context (Reference Oishi, Tsutsui, Eggleston and GalinhaOishi et al., 2014; Reference Moyano-Díaz, Cornejo, Carreño and MuñozMoyano-Diaz et al., 2013; Reference Roets, Schwartz and GuanRoets et al., 2012). Decision-making conditions vary by culture (Reference Roets, Schwartz and GuanRoets et al., 2012). Although the results of the present study show the usefulness of the two-component model as described by Reference Cheek and SchwartzCheek and Schwartz (2016). The model proposes that maximizing as a goal should be adaptive and maximizing as a strategy should be maladaptive. The results of the present study are not fully in line with some of the previous research. Reference Turner, Rim, Betz and NygrenTurner et al. (2012) measured maximizing as decision difficulty and alternative search. In the current study, their alternative search subscale was used to measure maximizing as a strategy and, while in their study (employing a U.S. sample) a small positive correlation between alternative search and happiness was found, in the current study we found a small correlation in the opposite direction. Moreover, Reference Dalal, Diab, Zhu and HwangDalal et al. (2015) measured maximizing (in a Caucasian sample) using their MTS-7 measure (used to measure maximizing as a goal in this study). Their results point to a positive relationship between life satisfaction and maximizing. In our study, maximizing as a goal was not related to well-being. In addition, the relationship between extraversion and maximizing (as a goal) was stronger than in their study. The results of the current study are more in line with the results by Reference Oishi, Tsutsui, Eggleston and GalinhaOishi et al. (2014). In that study, the alternative search was positively correlated with neuroticism and depression in both samples (Japan and U.S. sample) but in the Japanese sample, there was a small negative correlation between happiness and alternative search. We have observed a similar effect. In this respect, Reference Oishi, Tsutsui, Eggleston and GalinhaOishi et al. (2014) suggest that, while in the U.S. sample the employed measurement may contribute to different results between maximization and well-being, in Japan sample maximizing had a negative effect on well-being regardless of the scale that was used. Lastly, Reference Ďuriník, Procházka and CíglerĎuriník et al. (2018) found a small negative correlation between alternative search and happiness in a similar a closely related population (Czech).
The last decision-making tendency which was examined in our study was satisficing. Satisficing is characterized as a potentially adaptive decision-making strategy which leads to positive affectivity (Reference Schwartz, Ward, Monterosso, Lyubomirsky, White and LehmanSchwartz et al., 2002; Reference Rim, Turner, Betz and NygrenRim et al., 2011; Reference Turner, Rim, Betz and NygrenTurner et al., 2012). In the current study, we found very weak and insignificant relationships among satisficing and all other variables (with other decision-making tendencies: maximizing as a goal, and maximizing as a strategy, and with well-being variables: happiness, and depression, but also with personality factors such as neuroticism, extraversion, and with self-rumination). Based on our results, we were unable to offer evidence concerning whether satisficing is adaptive or maladaptive.
The fact that satisficing was unrelated to anythingFootnote 2 is a rather surprising result. The construct measuring satisficing also showed a lower level of reliability. On the other hand, these results are in accordance with the study in which the authors developed the measurement tool which we used. The reliability is approximately the same as in the study from the authors who created this subscale. The same applies to the relationship between satisficing and well-being. In the original work (a subscale called less ambitious satisficing) it was not related to depression or life-satisfaction (Reference Misuraca, Faraci, Gangemi, Carmeci and MiceliMisuraca et al., 2015). Although there are three subscales measuring satisficing tendency, Reference Cheek and SchwartzCheek and Schwartz (2016) proposed a less ambitious satisficing subscale as a good variant to measure this tendency because items of this subscale better reflect this tendency. According to them, a more ambitious satisficing subscale (DMTI; Reference Misuraca, Faraci, Gangemi, Carmeci and MiceliMisuraca et al., 2015) reflects general perseverance rather than satisficing. In addition, some items of the satisficing subscale from the Maximization inventory (Reference Turner, Rim, Betz and NygrenTurner et al., 2012) reflect something like “make the best of the situation”, and some items reflect the “tolerance of uncertainty” rather than satisficing tendency (Reference Cheek and SchwartzCheek & Schwartz, 2016, p.132). In accordance with these recommendations, we decided to measure it with the less ambitious satisficing subscale. However, the results in the current study appear to question the extent to which satisficing is a valid construct (in the sense of, for example, its criterion validity). Satisficing, as defined, could be a relevant and useful construct, but it seems that in its current form, its conceptualization and its measurement is disputable. In other words, although it is an undeniable fact that in recent decades much attention has been paid to the controversial nature of the tendency to maximize, a future direction could be focused also on satisficing tendency and its conceptualization and measurement.
Knowing how decision-making tendencies (maximizing and satisficing) are related to neuroticism, extraversion and self-rumination could explain the different findings regarding the maladaptive and adaptive nature of these tendencies. All three variables (neuroticism, extraversion, and self-rumination) have been repeatedly and stably identified as factors that are strongly related to depression and happiness (e.g., Reference Hakulinen, Elovainio, Pulkki-Råback, Virtanen, Kivimäki and JokelaHakulinen et al., 2015; Reference Van Eeden, van Hemert, Carlier, Penninx, Spinhoven and GiltayVan Eeden et al., 2019; Reference Olatunji, Naragon-Gainey and Wolitzky-TaylorOlatunji, Naragon-Gainey & Wolitzky-Taylor, 2013; Reference Pishva, Ghalehban, Moradi and HoseiniPishva et al., 2011; Reference SaricamSariçam, 2016; Reference DeNeve and CooperDeNeve & Cooper, 1998; Reference Hills and ArgyleHills & Argyle, 2001).These relations were also consistent with our results. Past research shows that if neuroticism was controlled for, the tendency of maximizing did not have a negative effect on well-being (in a U.S. sample, at least). In the Japanese sample, maximizing had a negative effect on well-being even if the neuroticism was controlled for, which also suggests the lack of cultural invariance (Reference Oishi, Tsutsui, Eggleston and GalinhaOishi et al., 2014; Reference Purvis, Howell and IyerPurvis et al., 2011). The different effects of maximizing as a goal and maximizing as a strategy on well-being could thus be explained through different relationships to variables that are significant in the context of well-being.Footnote 3
This study aimed to adopt the conceptual two-component model of maximizing proposed by Reference Cheek and SchwartzCheek & Schwartz (2016) and discuss the (mal)adaptive effect of maximizing and satisficing tendencies and their relationship to personality and self-rumination. The results have shown that it is not straightforward to make inferences as to whether maximizing is maladaptive or not. It depends on several factors. Firstly, our study, like some other studies (Reference Cheek and WardCheek & Ward, 2019; Reference Hughes and ScholerHughes & Scholer, 2017; Reference Mikkelson and RayMikkelson & Ray, 2020; Reference Cheek and GoebelCheek & Goebel, 2020), shows the usefulness of the adaptation the two-component model of maximizing to provide insight into contradictory findings. In addition, according to our findings, maximizing as a goal and maximizing as a strategy could be related to well-being and personality in different ways.
Several limitations of the present study are worth mentioning.In future research, the use of more complex designs should be considered (e.g., longitudinal or experimental), possibly also varying the cultural context. As pointed out by Reference Purvis, Howell and IyerPurvis et al. (2011) personality factors could also play an important role in the (mal)adaptive effect of maximizing on well-being. This effect may also vary across samples from different cultures (Reference Oishi, Tsutsui, Eggleston and GalinhaOishi et al., 2014). The results in our work did not support the need to measure satisficing as a construct distinct from maximizing (conceptualized as a being discrete). Future research could focus more on the conceptual model of this tendency, on items with validity distinct from maximizing, and if it is justified to measure those constructs separately at all. Despite the above given limitations, the main contribution of the present study is the measurement of the components of maximizing/satisficing tendencies in a novel cultural context. Lastly, the results from this sample may be helpful to researchers struggling with confusion in the maximizing literature.
Open access
