IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/84324.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Maximizing versus satisficing in the digital age: disjoint scales and the case for “construct consensus”

Author

Listed:
  • Misuraca, Raffaella
  • Fasolo, Barbara

Abstract

A question facing us today, in the new and rapidly evolving digital age, is whether searching for the best option – being a maximizer – leads to greater happiness and better outcomes than settling on the first good enough option found – or “satisficing.” Answers to this question inform behavioural insights to improve well-being and decision-making in policy and organizational settings. Yet, the answers to this fundamental question of measurement of the happiness of a maximizer versus a satisficer in the current psychological literature are: 1) conflicting; 2) anchored on the use of the first scale published to measure maximization as an individual-difference, and 3) unable to describe the search behaviour of decision makers navigating the digital world with tools of the 21st century - apps, smartphones or tablets, and most often all of them. We present, based on a review and analysis of the literature and scales, a call to stop the development of more maximization scales. Furthermore, we articulate the argument for a re-definition of maximizing that balances the face validity of the construct and the relevance to decision making in an age of digital tools so that future scales are useful for future choice architects and researchers

Suggested Citation

  • Misuraca, Raffaella & Fasolo, Barbara, 2018. "Maximizing versus satisficing in the digital age: disjoint scales and the case for “construct consensus”," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 84324, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:84324
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/84324/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:2:p:126-146 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:1:p:92-101 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:1:p:48-60 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:2:y:2007:i::p:342-350 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Jonathan Levav & Nicholas Reinholtz & Claire Lin, 2012. "The Effect of Ordering Decisions by Choice-Set Size on Consumer Search," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 39(3), pages 585-599.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:6:p:689-704 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:5:p:644-658 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:6:y:2011:i:4:p:307-313 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i::p:371-388 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:4:p:441-451 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Yan Chen & Grace Jeon & Yong-Mi Kim, 2014. "A day without a search engine: an experimental study of online and offline searches," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 17(4), pages 512-536, December.
    12. repec:cup:judgdm:v:6:y:2011:i:6:p:565-579 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    14. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:3:p:164-175 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Eric Johnson & Suzanne Shu & Benedict Dellaert & Craig Fox & Daniel Goldstein & Gerald Häubl & Richard Larrick & John Payne & Ellen Peters & David Schkade & Brian Wansink & Elke Weber, 2012. "Beyond nudges: Tools of a choice architecture," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 487-504, June.
    16. Ali Besharat & Daniel Ladik & François Carrillat, 2014. "Are maximizers blind to the future? When today’s best does not make for a better tomorrow," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 77-91, March.
    17. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i::p:364-370 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:4:p:448-469 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Tilottama Chowdhury & S. Ratneshwar & Praggyan Mohanty, 2009. "The time-harried shopper: Exploring the differences between maximizers and satisficers," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 155-167, June.
    20. François Carrillat & Daniel Ladik & Renaud Legoux, 2011. "When the decision ball keeps rolling: An investigation of the Sisyphus effect among maximizing consumers," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 283-296, September.
    21. Jingjing Ma & Neal J. Roese, 2014. "The Maximizing Mind-Set," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 41(1), pages 71-92.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:2:p:126-146 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Nathan N. Cheek & Barry Schwartz, 2016. "On the meaning and measurement of maximization," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(2), pages 126-146, March.
    3. Ana Alina Tudoran, 2022. "A machine learning approach to identifying decision-making styles for managing customer relationships," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(1), pages 351-374, March.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:5:p:516-526 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Ma, Jingjing & Lin, Yu (Anna) & Ein-Gar, Danit, 2023. "Charitable maximizers: The impact of the maximizing mindset on donations to human recipients," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 417-434.
    6. Kaeun Kim & Elizabeth Miller, 2017. "Vulnerable maximizers: The role of decision difficulty," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(5), pages 516-526, September.
    7. Mittal, Banwari, 2016. "The maximizing consumer wants even more choices: How consumers cope with the marketplace of overchoice," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 361-370.
    8. Xia, Lan & Bechwati, Nada Nasr, 2021. "Maximizing what? The effect of maximizing mindset on the evaluation of product bundles," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 314-325.
    9. Harris, Patricia & Dall’Olmo Riley, Francesca & Hand, Chris, 2021. "Multichannel shopping: The effect of decision making style on shopper journey configuration and satisfaction," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    10. Michail D. Kokkoris, 2018. "When the purpose lies within: Maximizers and satisfaction with autotelic choices," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 73-85, March.
    11. Daniel C. Brannon & Brandon W. Soltwisch, 2017. "If it has lots of bells and whistles, it must be the best: how maximizers and satisficers evaluate feature-rich versus feature-poor products," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 651-662, December.
    12. Nathan N. Cheek & Jacob Goebel, 2020. "What does it mean to maximize? “Decision difficulty,†indecisiveness, and the jingle-jangle fallacies in the measurement of maximizing," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(1), pages 7-24, January.
    13. Muthaffar, Aisha & Vilches-Montero, Sonia, 2023. "Empowering retailers: A bounded rationality perspective to enhancing omnichannel journey satisfaction," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    14. Khare, Adwait & Chowdhury, Tilottama G. & Morgan, Jeremy, 2021. "Maximizers and Satisficers: Can’t choose and Can’t reject," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 731-748.
    15. Heitz-Spahn, Sandrine & Belaud, Lydie & Ferrandi, Jean-Marc, 2024. "A regulatory focus theory approach to understanding cross-channel free-riding behaviour," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    16. Tian Qiu & Yang Bai & Jingyi Lu, 2020. "Taking risks for the best: Maximizing and risk-taking tendencies," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(4), pages 499-508, July.
    17. Cervi, Cleber & Brei, Vinicius Andrade, 2022. "Choice deferral: The interaction effects of visual boundaries and consumer knowledge," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    18. Abastante, Francesca & Corrente, Salvatore & Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio & Lami, Isabella M., 2018. "Choice architecture for architecture choices: Evaluating social housing initiatives putting together a parsimonious AHP methodology and the Choquet integral," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 748-762.
    19. Brandon William Soltwisch, 2021. "When the Quest for the Best Pays Off: How Maximising Entrepreneurs Improve Performance by Creating Entrepreneurial and Market Oriented Businesses," Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Emerging Economies, Entrepreneurship Development Institute of India, vol. 30(2), pages 223-248, September.
    20. Liu, Pengcheng & Xie, Qing & You, Yi & Dong, Qingqing, 2024. "A Study of Choice Overload Measurement in Food Consumption," IAAE 2024 Conference, August 2-7, 2024, New Delhi, India 344272, International Association of Agricultural Economists (IAAE).
    21. Delgado, Laura & Shealy, Tripp, 2018. "Opportunities for greater energy efficiency in government facilities by aligning decision structures with advances in behavioral science," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 3952-3961.
    22. David Schneider & Johannes Klumpe & Martin Adam & Alexander Benlian, 2020. "Nudging users into digital service solutions," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 30(4), pages 863-881, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    maximizing; satisficing; individual differences; decision making; scale anchoring bias; digital search tools.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J50 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor-Management Relations, Trade Unions, and Collective Bargaining - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:84324. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.