On the meaning and measurement of maximization
Journal Title: Judgment and Decision Making - Year 2016, Vol 11, Issue 1
Abstract
Building on Herbert Simon’s critique of rational choice theory, Schwartz et al. (2002) proposed that when making choices, some individuals — maximizers — search extensively through many alternatives with the goal of making the best choice, whereas others — satisficers — search only until they identify an option that meets their standards, which they then choose. They developed the Maximization Scale (MS) to measure individual differences in maximization, and a substantial amount of research has now examined maximization using the MS, painting a picture of maximizers that is generally negative. Recently, however, several researchers have criticized the MS, and almost a dozen new measures of maximization have now been published, resulting in a befuddling and contradictory literature. We seek to clarify the confusing literature on the measurement of maximization to help make sense of the existing findings and to facilitate future research. We begin by briefly summarizing the understanding of maximizers that has emerged through research using Schwartz et al.’s MS. We then review the literature on the measurement of maximization, attempting to identify the similarities and differences among the 11 published measures of maximization. Next, we propose a two-component model of maximization, outlining our view of how maximization should be conceptualized and measured. Our model posits that maximization is best understood as the pursuit of the maximization goal of choosing the best option through the maximization strategy of alternative search; other constructs such as decision difficulty and regret are best considered outcomes or causes — rather than components — of maximization. We discuss the implications of our review and model for research on maximization, highlighting what we see as pressing unanswered questions and important directions for future investigations.
Authors and Affiliations
Nathan N. Cheek and Barry Schwartz
Keywords
Related Articles
- EP ID EP678233
- DOI -
- Views 155
- Downloads 0
An exploratory investigation of the impact of evaluation context on ambiguity aversion
This paper explores how context influences the evaluation of risky and ambiguous bets in the classic two-colour Ellsberg task. In three experiments context was manipulated via the presence/absence of additional bets agai...
Inverted U-shaped model: How frequent repetition affects perceived risk
We asked how repeated media reports on technological hazards influence an individual’s risk perception. We looked for two contradictory effects, an increasing effect of repetition on perceived risk with the first few rep...
Process dynamics in delay discounting decisions: An attractor dynamics approach
How do people make decisions between an immediate but small reward and a delayed but large one? The outcome of such decisions indicates that people discount rewards by their delay and hence these outcomes are well descri...
Is that the answer you had in mind? The effect of perspective on unethical behavior
We explored how the perspective through which individuals view their actions influences their ethicality, comparing a narrow perspective that allows for evaluation of each choice in isolation, to a broad perspective that...
Does menu design influence retirement investment choices? Evidence from Italian occupational pension funds
Previous research has demonstrated that consumers’ decisions regarding supplementary pensions could be affected by biases. Bernatzi and Thaler’s experiment demonstrated that menu design can influence pension fund enrollm...