Maximizing vs. Satisficing? How happy are you with your decisions?

"Choose well, your choice is brief, yet endless." ~ Goethe

• Do you channel surf when you watch TV, even while attempting to watch one program?
• When you are in the car listening to the radio, do you often check other stations to see if something better is playing even if you’re relatively satisfied with what you’re listening to?
• No matter how satisfied with you are with your job, do you think it is only right for you to be on the lookout for better opportunities?
• Do you find that writing – even just a letter to a friend – is difficult because it’s so hard to word things just right?
• Do you find renting videos, or shopping for clothes or gifts difficult because you’re always struggling to pick the best one?
• Whenever you’re faced with a choice, do you try to imagine what all the other possibilities are, even ones that aren’t possible at the moment?

Well, if you said yes to most of the above questions you’re probably a “maximizer” - that is, you have goal orientation that is driven by the question “Is this the best?”. But if you think more in terms of “Is this alternative acceptable?” you are more of a “satisficer”.

Of course, like for any other psychological categorization, these represent general tendencies and could show variation depending on factors such as the type of decision (eg., health – related vs. grocery shopping) and the time available to make a decision.

Maximizing is the better strategy especially for important decisions - maximizers plan more carefully in solving problems, and their high standards may drive them to greater achievement.  However, maximization can come at a significant cost to well-being. If you are a maximizer you probably experience some negative post-decision consequences of being a maximizer.

Research shows that maximization is negatively related to happiness, optimism, self-esteem, and life satisfaction, and positively associated depression, perfectionism, and regret. This means picking the best option does not come with being happy or satified with the decision.

This is a red flag especially when the number of options increase. Most of us enjoy flexibility and having options – we think the more the better, right? Well, research shows: rather not! According to Dr. Barry Schwartz of Swarthmore College, as more options are added three problems arise:

1. It becomes difficult to gather adequate information for all available options.
2. As options expand, people’s standards for what is an acceptable outcome rise.
3. People may come to believe that any unacceptable result is their fault, because with so many options, they should be able to find a satisfactory one.

But these problems do not trouble everyone equally. Maximizers tend to “suffer” more compared to satisficiers. Think about a purchasing decision.  If there were only two software programs it would be relatively easier to pick one, but let’s say the IT manager is trying to decide among five products. Let's look at two scenarios:

A “satisficer” manager would be content with using “good enough” information as basis for making a choice. Based on this information, her goal would be to pick the one which is “acceptable” for the needs of the company. Post-decision she wouldn’t keep on questioning her decision thinking “Have I collected all information?” or “Is this really the best software for the company, or could one of the others have been better?”

A maximizer, on the other hand would try to make sure he has a lot of information about each product – which would probably take longer to gather and evaluate. His decision making will be guided by “Which one is the best?”. After he makes his decision he is likely to seek standards or ratings to compare his decision against. 

The irony is that despite doing their best in weighing the options, maximizers can’t let go once they've made a choice. In a way you could also say that maximizers spend too much time in the deliberative mindset. Rather, they show a susceptibility to regret as indicated by the following statements:

• Whenever I make a choice, I’m curious about what would have happened if I had chosen differently.
• Whenever I make a choice, I try to get information about how the other alternatives turned out.
• If I make a choice and it turns out well, I still feel like something of a failure if I find out that another choice would have turned out better.

Maximizers also have higher expectations from their chosen option and they expect a higher rate of return given the huge investment they’ve made in weighing the alternatives before deciding. This tendency sets them up for frequent disappointment.

So, if you

• have a general tendency to take a lot of time in weighing different options;
• find it difficult to enjoy the choices you’ve made because you can’t stop thinking what would have happened if you had picked the other alternative;
• tend to compare yourself frequently with others – especially those who are better off;
• experience regret often;
• can’t make sense why the boost of happiness you got from making that “best” decision wares off so easily (despite all that effort you’ve put in!)

then, you need to make some changes in the way you make decisions. That is, if you would like to still make good decisions, but be more satisfied and happy with them and experience less regret.

Here's a few things that will help you to make the shift:

• Become aware how much time and energy you’re putting into making different decisions
• Each time you’re faced with a decision (and that includes ordering food in a restaurant!) allocate a certain amount of time for decision making and stick with that.
• Question your goal to pick “the best option” when faced with decisions – ask yourself: Is it really that important and necessary, or is it enough to pick “a good enough /acceptable” option?
• Get others to question you when you are striving to pick the best option.
• As you shift towards making “satisficing” decisions, make a quick post-decision analysis. How long did it take? How good do you feel about the decision? And how satisfying were the results? The aim here is to see you can still make good decisions by being a “satisficer”.  

Again, like any other habit it will take time to change this one but it is likely to have positive outcomes.  That's also why I suggest practicing it even with minor decisions such as ordering food or renting a movie. And you’ll still have the flexibility to take all the time you need when you are faced with important decisions.  Happy deciding!

References:

Schwartz, B. (2000). Self determination: The tyranny of freedom. American Psychologist, 55, 79 – 88.

Schwartz, B., Ward, A., Monterosso, J., Lyubomirsky, S., White, K., & Lehman, D. R. (2002). Maximizing versus satisficing: Happiness is a matter of choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1178-1197.

  

Three fundamental human needs (Part IV): Can we be both autonomous and connected at the same time?

I think this is a question that many people struggle with from time to time. The apparent conflict lies in thinking in terms of "being autonomous/independent versus connected" as if these are two opposite ends of a continuum. If you also see them that way I invite you to take a different perspective – considering them as two different dimensions rather than being the polar opposites of the same dimension.

Being autonomous or independent - the third fundamental need we have - relates to the way we develop ourselves with a vision and goals we set to reach that vision. It is the almost the method/attitude with which we create our roadmap to who we want to be and how we want our lives to be like.

How you create that vision can either take an independent/ autonomous form with you tapping into your unique being, your desires and dreams - in a way very similar to tapping into your ideal-self. Or you could create a vision more in line with the expectations of others (e.g., family, friends, colleagues) and the norms of the groups you belong to (e.g., the company you work for, the society you live in) without too much reference to your unique potential. This latter way is parallel to emphasizing your ought-self when you create that vision.

Being connected relates to having close and intimate relationships marked by stability, emotional concern and continuation into the foreseeable future. That is quite a different dimension than what I’ve described above. Having those relationships does not mean you are not independent anymore. On the contrary, those relationships support you in the journey to your vision.

In other words, being autonomous or independent is a relatively within-person quality; whereas being connected is an interpersonal quality.

When you consider this way of looking at them it becomes clear that they are complementary rather than conflicting. In fact, our research findings show exactly that too. People who are both autonomous and connected experience higher levels of well-being compared to those who fall short in either or both of those qualities. They are less prone to depression; emotionally more stable; and enjoy higher levels of self-esteem and life-satisfaction.

Then it is not a good idea to pit autonomy against connectedness, but rather encourage both. But why are we sometimes tempted to think one would come at the expense of the other?

I think that comes from an assumption we make: “to be connected I need to incorporate other people’s expectations and desires into the vision I create for myself”. And I believe this assumption is partly sustained by the desire to fit in. It is important to become aware of that belief and to question if that is indeed a valid assumption. I invite you to do that with an open mind…

References

Imamoglu, E. O. (2003). Individuation and relatedness: Not opposing, but distinct and complementary. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 129, 367–402. Social Psychology, 142, 333–351.

Kurt, A. (2002). Autonomy and relatedness: A comparison of Canadians and Turks. Paper Presented at the Annual Convention of Canadian Psychological Association; June 2002, Vancouver, BC.

You are an expat, therefore….

Anyone who hasn’t been stereotyped or prejudiced against? The answer is rarely “Me!”. So it’s highly likely that you’ll relate to what I’ll describe in this post - especially if you are among the “people on the move”; a group who gets frequently stereotyped in different cultures, if not anything as “expats”.

Last time, I wrote if you think all stereotypes are negative that’s a prejudice, but then why’s there so much negative talk about stereotypes? From one perspective they are very useful because they help us to categorize and deal with the vast amount of social information that we are exposed to. In that sense they are not too different from other beliefs or knowledge structures we have, or generalizations we make such as ripe fruits are sweet, or German cars are reliable. They help us to process and store the information we have about the world, and to make judgments’ and decisions as we go along.

From the users’ perspective there are not too many downsides to relying on stereotypes – except for making some inaccurate judgments about people from time to time, which might have serious or not-so-serious consequences. Possibly the main reason why stereotypes are treated as the bad guys is the impact stereotyping has on the targets.

We can talk about three ways in which stereotyping influences the targets. First is through the way people explain positive and negative outcomes. Imagine (and for most people – just remember) that you are a member of a stereotyped social group. You are well aware of the stereotype and you know that it includes the belief that your group is not competent in a particular domain (e.g., social skills, math, sports, academics, management). Let’s take management. You’ve just received your evaluation as a manager and it’s rather a negative one. Now, you find yourself wondering how objective your supervisor was in evaluating your performance – does the report reflect an accurate assessment of your skills; or has the stereotype related to your social group played a role? Or think of the other scenario where you’ve got a great evaluation, and you find yourself asking a similar question: Is it really me; or is it the company policy about encouraging minorities? In either case the reasons behind the evaluation will carry some ambiguity. And this ambiguity will have implications for your future motivation and performance.

The second way in which stereotyping can influence the targets is through the anxiety it creates. Typical scenario is that you – as a member of a stereotyped group – are aware of the stereotype that your group is perceived not to be that good in a domain (e.g., Math for women; intelligence and academic success for many minorities or people from lower socioeconomic status etc.,). When you find yourself in a situation that will emphasize your skills in that domain, the thought of not performing well and confirming the stereotype creates anxiety. On top of that add the anxiety about doing something that will reflect negatively on your group – now you have enough anxiety to undermine your performance! This, by now well-established effect – is called stereotype threat and its impacts have been demonstrated from educational settings to workplace.

Finally, stereotypes also have a negative impact on targets through the process of self-fulfilling prophecy. Imagine that your manager, in line with her stereotype of your social group, has low expectations of you. Therefore she assigns low priority goals or projects to you. So you get to display your skills in a limited scope; or following the reciprocity norm, you respond by low contributions to low expectations. What ensues is self-fulfilling prophecy demonstrated by a cycle of low expectations - limited contribution that perpetuates the stereotype.  

How about people’s expectations about YOU as a result of their “expat” stereotype: that you make tons of money; your employment comes at the expense of locals’ employment; you’re driving the housing process/rents up; you are living in their community just temporarily? How has being the target of “expat” stereotype been influencing you?

You might be wondering how to work around it – how to break the cycle. Here are a few suggestions:

 

• Don’t give in to your “saboteur*” who will try to undermine your successes by saying “You got the promotion because you are from Group X”; or who will make you nervous by saying “You know what they think – you’re going to fail because you’re from Group X”.

• Instead, take credit for your very own accomplishments; do your reality check with trusted colleagues. To be at your best, make sure to be honest in your self-assessments and avoid the tendency to consistently blame the stereotypes. Work with a coach to support you in dealing with self-limiting beliefs.

• In dealing with stereotype threat: make a list of times when you did succeed in the domain despite what the stereotype suggests. Enrich your list with examples from other members of your group. Make the list easily accessible for future reference so that dealing with anxiety becomes a very easy task.  

• Be aware of the expectations due to stereotypes and deliberately set targets to go beyond them. Get involved in setting goals for yourself and demand higher goals to show your skills.

• Highlight accomplishments – yours or other stereotyped individuals’ – to encourage stereotype change especially given people’s tendency to regard those cases as “exceptions” to keep their stereotypes intact. 
  

*saboteur : also known as “inner critic”, “negative self-talk”