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

Area of Science:

• Psychology
• Decision Science
• Behavioral Economics

Background:

• Conflicting conclusions exist regarding the benefits and drawbacks of maximization.
• Existing research often fails to distinguish between the goals and strategies of maximization.

Purpose of the Study:

• To differentiate between the goals (wanting the best) and strategies (e.g., alternative search) associated with maximization.
• To investigate how this differentiation impacts affective costs experienced during decision-making.

Main Methods:

• Three studies were conducted to explore the relationship between maximization goals, strategies, and affective costs.
• Study 1 examined motivational orientations (promotion focus, assessment mode) in relation to maximization goals and strategies.
• Studies 2 and 3 investigated the link between alternative search strategies and negative affective experiences (frustration, reconsideration of dismissed options).

Main Results:

• Both promotion focus and assessment mode align with the goal of wanting the best.
• Assessment mode, but not promotion focus, is linked to employing alternative search strategies.
• Alternative search strategies are associated with increased frustration and reconsideration of rejected options during decision-making.

Conclusions:

• Distinguishing between maximization goals and strategies provides a nuanced understanding of its affective consequences.
• Alternative search strategies, often employed by maximizers, can lead to negative decision-making experiences.
• This approach offers a framework to integrate and resolve conflicting findings in maximization research.