It's nice to have options. Decades of research shows that people provided with a limited set of options exhibit increased choice motivation and outcome satisfaction compared to those given no choice at all (1), a fact that may seem intuitively obvious. Yet if the number of options exceeds a certain threshold, motivation and satisfaction fail to increase and - somewhat astonishingly - they actually decline.
In his book The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less (2), author Barry Schwartz reveals that the majority of people may be classified into one of two groups depending upon the type of strategy they adopt when faced with a choice.
(1) Whenever I’m faced with a choice, I try to imagine all the other possibilities, even ones that aren’t present at the moment.
In today's world of choice overload, maximizers are disadvantaged compared to satisficers. While the former spend more time and energy by seeking and evaluating more options compared to the latter, maximizers tend to be less pleased with the outcomes of their decisions compared to satisficers; in fact, the greatest maximizers are often the least happy with the results of their efforts (3). To a maximizer, it might appear that satisficers - since they do not spend vast amounts of time and energy pursuing that elusive best option - are content to choose mediocrity. Yet this is not so. Satisficers simply prefer standards over expectations - a standard denotes a level of quality or achievement (4) whereas an expectation denotes a belief that something is bound to happen (5). Standards can as low or as high as a satisficer wants them to be, even on the level of excellence if deemed necessary. Expectations, on the other hand, are illusory in that the thing being sought - that elusive best option - can only really be identified once all of the alternatives have been exhausted, a process that requires considerable amounts of time and energy and may well be impossible in a world beset by choice overload.
References
Proudly powered by Weebly