When Wanting the Best Goes Right or Wrong: Distinguishing Between Adaptive and Maladaptive Maximization

Adaptive aspects of maximizing in times of COVID-19: coping efforts linking maximization to well-being

Introduction

Maximization, the tendency to make the best choices by thoroughly searching and comparing alternatives, has long been considered a negative correlate of well-being. However, recently, it was proposed that having a maximizing tendency can lead to better coping efforts in some stressful situations and thus could be more adaptive. The objective of the present research was to demonstrate positive features of maximization and identify the coping strategies that mediate the relationship between maximization and well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

A sample of 3,493 participants responded to an online survey from January 20 to October 11 of 2020. The 13-item Maximization Scale assessed individuals' maximizing tendency in terms of the maximization index and its three subdimensions (i.e., high standards, alternative search, and decision difficulty). The use of four coping strategies (i.e., preventive measures, cognitive appraisal, self-distraction, and social connection) during the COVID-19 pandemic was assessed. Hedonic and eudaimonic aspects of well-being were measured. We developed a mediation model and examined both whether there was an indirect link between maximization and well-being through the coping strategies and whether there was a direct link between maximization and well-being.

Results

Path analysis revealed negative direct associations between maximization measures (i.e., an index and three subdimensions) and well-being. In addition, significant indirect paths were found with varying directions depending on maximization dimensions and coping strategy types. There were positive indirect associations between the maximization index and well-being via preventive measures, between high standards and well-being through preventive measures and cognitive appraisal, and between alternative search and well-being through self-distraction and social connection. Negative indirect associations were found between decision difficulty and well-being through cognitive appraisal, self-distraction, and social connection.

Discussion

The current study confirmed the existence of inconsistent mediation effects between maximization and well-being via coping and highlighted coping efforts as one of the positive aspects of maximization. Discussion addressed the double-edged effect of maximization on well-being and its beneficial nature in times of distress. Future studies should examine other potential situations and moderators that can delineate maximization's various characteristics with a longitudinal design and samples from diverse backgrounds.

Maximizers' Reactance to Algorithm-Recommended Options: The Moderating Role of Autotelic vs. Instrumental Choices

The previous literature has provided mixed findings regarding whether consumers appreciate or are opposed to algorithms. The primary goal of this paper is to address these inconsistencies by identifying the maximizing tendency as a critical moderating variable. In Study 1, it was found that maximizers, individuals who strive for the best possible outcomes, exhibit greater reactance toward algorithm-recommended choices than satisficers, those who are satisfied with a good-enough option. This increased reactance also resulted in decreased algorithm adoption intention. Study 2 replicated and extended the findings from Study 1 by identifying the moderating role of choice goals. Maximizers are more likely to experience reactance to algorithm-recommended options when the act of choosing itself is intrinsically motivating and meaningful (i.e., autotelic choices) compared to when the decision is merely a means to an end (i.e., instrumental choices). The results of this research contribute to a nuanced understanding of how consumers with different decision-making styles navigate the landscape of choice in the digital age. Furthermore, it offers practical insights for firms that utilize algorithmic recommendations in their businesses.

The Maximizing Penalty: Maximizers are Perceived as Less Warm and Receive Less Social Support

Economically, maximizing, the tendency to seek the best, is good because it entails possibilities to optimize decision outcomes. However, research has shown that maximizing is costly in that maximizers are more regretful and less satisfied with their decisions. Beyond these intrapersonal downsides, this research investigates another important but largely ignored downside—the interpersonal costs of being a maximizer—and documents a maximizing penalty in social cognition wherein maximizers (vs. satisficers) are viewed as less warm and consequently receive less social support. Four studies provide evidence for the maximizing penalty. This research contributes to the literature on maximizing by revealing the social cost of being a maximizer and the literature on choice perception by showing that decision makers are perceived by their aspiration.

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

There is a lively debate about the effect of maximizing and satisficing tendencies on well-being. The question is, whether maximizing and satisficing have an adaptive or maladaptive effect on well-being. There are also issues regarding the conceptualization and measurement of maximizing and satisficing tendencies. In a sample of 514 subjects from the general population in Slovakia, a two-component model of maximizing was examined. Satisficing tendency was measured as a separate construct. The results show the usefulness of a two-component model (maximizing as a strategy and maximizing as a goal) in measuring maximizing tendency. Maximizing as a strategy (measured as alternative search) turned out to be maladaptive (positively related to depression and negatively related to happiness), whereas maximizing as a goal (measured as high standards) had no maladaptive effect (no relation with well-being). In addition, the two components were differently associated with personality factors, which strengthens the need to distinguish between them. However, the satisficing tendency measured separately from maximizing tendency was not related to anything which raises a question about the conceptualization and validity of this tendency. The results of the current study, therefore, indicate that 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. However, results also point to the importance of considering the cultural context that may have an effect on the relationship between maximizing and well-being. Therefore, the results may vary due to different cultures.

What does it mean to maximize? “Decision difficulty,” indecisiveness, and the jingle-jangle fallacies in the measurement of maximizing

For two decades, researchers have investigated the correlates and consequences of individual differences in maximizing, the tendency to pursue the goal of making the best possible choice by extensively seeking out and comparing alternatives. In this time, many different conceptualizations of maximizing have been proposed, including several that incorporate a construct called “decision difficulty.” We propose that including decision difficulty in measures of maximizing is problematic because the tendency to experience difficulty when making decisions is a separate individual difference construct already studied independently of maximizing — namely, indecisiveness. Across two studies (total N = 639), we find that scales measuring decision difficulty and indecisiveness are strongly correlated (r’s ≥ .85), load on the same component in a principal component analysis, and show a very similar pattern of correlations with related variables. Moreover, decision difficulty and indecisiveness scales both show a divergent pattern of correlations when compared to measures of maximizing. We argue that decision difficulty scales are best interpreted as tapping the same underlying tendency as indecisiveness scales, and conclude that the tendency to experience difficulty in decision making is best conceptualized not as a component of maximizing, but rather a cause or consequence of it.