Schwartz · Journal of personality and social psychology 2002 · Multi-study psychometric validation, cross-sectional survey, and experimental task series · n=?

Maximizing versus satisficing: happiness is a matter of choice.

Cited 1266 times in the scientific literature.

Level 4 - case-series / case-control

Level 4 by design analogy (psychometric scale validation, cross-sectional surveys, and laboratory behavioral tasks)

PubMed 12416921 · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.83.5.1178 · record verified 2026-08-28

What was done

Across four studies, researchers developed and evaluated a Maximization Scale to assess individual differences in the tendency to maximize choice outcomes versus satisficing (settling for a "good enough" option). Study 1 assessed the scale's relationship with psychological well-being across seven distinct samples. Study 2 evaluated satisfaction with consumer purchasing decisions and frequency of social comparison. Study 3 examined responses to upward social comparison. Study 4 evaluated regret sensitivity and post-outcome satisfaction during an ultimatum bargaining game.

What was found

The abstract reports no specific numerical values, correlation coefficients, or sample sizes. Directionally, maximization tendency correlated negatively with happiness, optimism, self-esteem, and life satisfaction, while correlating positively with depression, perfectionism, and regret. Compared to satisficers, maximizers reported less satisfaction with consumer decisions, engaged in more social comparison, suffered greater negative psychological impact from upward social comparison, and experienced greater sensitivity to regret and lower satisfaction following an ultimatum bargaining game.

Why it matters

This work introduced the psychological distinction between maximizing and satisficing in human decision-making, demonstrating that pursuing the absolute best outcome can paradoxically undermine subjective well-being and increase regret when choice options multiply.

Limits

The abstract provides no exact sample sizes, demographic characteristics, or quantitative effect sizes (such as correlation coefficients or test statistics). Causality cannot be definitively established for the cross-sectional survey components, and real-world behavioral outcomes beyond laboratory tasks and self-reported measures were not reported.

Cited by