|
|
Post by mrivera on Apr 17, 2016 3:11:48 GMT
Author Description
Barry Schwartz (born 1946) is an American psychologist. Schwartz is the Dorwin Cartwright Professor of Social Theory and Social Action at Swarthmore College. He frequently publishes editorials in the New York Times applying his research in psychology to current events.
Has given 4 TED Talks (2 global) - must be a pretty smart guy
Paper Summary
+ Maximizers: seek and accept only the best.
- Ex: Enters a store looking for a sweater, searches for the best sweater. Finds the sweater, in the checkout line decides to out the sweater somewhere hidden. Then checks the store down the street for better quality/prices. Returning to the first store only if the better option can’t be found.
- No one is an absolute maximizers - checking out every sweater in a store around the world before making a purchase would be impossible. Instead these individuals aspire to achieve a goal.
- Maximizers != perfectionists (according to Schwartz) - perfectionists have very high expectations that they don’t expect to meet; maximizers expect to meet them
- Maximization is not about efficiency- it's a state of mind.
+ Satisficers: one who settles for something that is good enough and doesn’t worry about the possibility that might be something better
- Searches for a sweater, finds one that fits the requirements. Buys the sweater and calls it a day.
- Generally content with their decisions
+ Price of Maximization
- Schwartz ran a series of surveys (1-7 agree vs. disagree scale) that classify people’s tendencies towards maximizing or satisficing; other surveys for the same people on well-being, happiness, optimism, depression, etc.
- Individuals with higher maximization have less satisfaction with life, are less happy, less optimistic, and generally more depressed than people with low maximization | Correlation (not causation)
- Maximizers experience regret more- before (in anticipation) a choice, during (questioning the options and imagining new ones), after. (E.g. buyer's remorse)
Quality of Decisions
- Maximizers do better objectively when making decisions; satisficers do better subjectively- but all that really matters is we are happy with the decisions that we make.. The satisficer wins.
- We aren’t maximizers for everything- so technically we could change our mindset to become a satisficer
+ Why do we maximize?
- We might have a non-conscious tendency
- We care too much about status; materialism; too much choice etc.
- Too many options in the world and something (presently unknown) creates maximizers and then the two combine to make people unhappy with a decision.
Discussion Questions
1) Are you a maximizer or satisficer (take the 13 question quiz in the chapter, brah)? Can you recall a situation in which you practiced each of these decision making styles?
2) What are some instances in which being a maximizer would be more beneficial than being a satisficer?
3) How can we design software and hardware interfaces to support satisficers and maximizers? Should we?
4) Is everyone being a satisficer really a desirable future state as Schwartz suggests (given that our capacity for either seems fluid)?
5) Does having many salsa jars to choose really make you better off? How does this related to other aspects of your life (dating- the influx of online dating apps; menus when you order food)?
|
|
mkery
New Member
Posts: 22 
|
Post by mkery on Apr 17, 2016 23:45:13 GMT
While the concept of “maximizers” and “satisficers” seems attractive as a kind of “Which pokemon are you?” personality test, I had a hard time attributing this article to science per se. The author seems to apply a lot of their own opinions towards causal claims without really presenting evidence.
One definition that seemed oddly narrow was the authors assumption that maximizers aim for “the best” when selecting clothing, television shows, jobs, etc. (as a caveat, I scored 64, pretty close to definite maximizer) What is “best”? From personal experience, when buying a living room armchair, for example, I like to first gather all pertinent information about armchairs: “What is the space of chair designs?” “What is the space of comfort, prices, etc.” “How do materials contrast in ability to clean and comfort?” … the internet makes an elaborate decision process very easy to do. Yet is this search and sensemaking process really about finding the “best” armchair? I don’t think so. I find it fun to learn about design, and am looking to form what my own requirements for a “good-fit” armchair are. Many possible armchairs will do. The authors seem to conflate the decision process with feelings towards the choice. Would a satisficer chose the first “good enough” car if they didn’t first understand what “good enough” meant to them?
|
|
|
|
Post by sciutoalex on Apr 18, 2016 1:53:28 GMT
So I'll bet that the majority of us will be bonafide maximizers or at least borderline. I scored 65, in the range which correlates with clinical depression, an inability to savor positive experiences, and heightened likelihood of brooding. Pretty accurate. I'm brooding as we speak.
For me, the need for maximizing comes from my need to exert control of my surroundings probably rooted in my parents rewarding me for always getting As in grade school (I'm only kind of kidding...). This week's two journal articles show that the standard economic model of decision making doesn't work, and they suggest replacing it with one that accounts for framing effects. But I think this chapter argues that our method for making decisions is even deeper than how a problem is presented. It comes from how we see the world, what gives us joy in the world, and what makes us feel good. I'm not talking about the outcome of the decision, but the decision making process itself.
I'm interested in how the maximizer personality relates to connoisseurship. I'm not aware of any research (cause I've never looked) that establishes whether connoisseurship gives more joy or more anxiety to the connoisseur. Thinking about wine or coffee snobs, it seems that connoisseurship offers moments of increased pleasure through greater awareness, but that increased pleasure is paired with an awareness of missing out when the best is not available to them. We can't always have the best, so is it worth being aware we're not having the best for those moments when we do have it? Though I'm a maximizer based on the quiz, I'm decidedly anti-connoisseurship because I don't want to give up the pleasure of drinking cheap beer or diner coffee that connoisseurship requires.
|
|
|
|
Post by anhong on Apr 18, 2016 1:54:49 GMT
I think myself as a maximizer, but only scored 54. I don't think this is a binary choice. Often times, we first maximize within our available options, then we expand our options, then we maximize, then we get tired, and settle in a choice. So in some sense, we are all maximizing at some stage and scenarios, and then satisfice (not sure whether this is correct). For software and hardware interfaces that can potentially support decision making, e.g., buying a cellphone, often there are a few easy choices to make, then customization for that choice. So the decision making step becomes aggregating small decisions instead of one decision among 6.5 millions choices in a stereo system (in the TED talk, he said there are 6.5 millions options you can construct a home stereo system, which I don't think is what we actually consider). For software interfaces, keeping the choices low at each level might be a good idea instead of presenting all the options at once.
|
|
|
|
Post by julian on Apr 18, 2016 2:09:26 GMT
I guess the present state of the world is kind of perfect to be a consumer maximizer. With endless shopping options and review systems like amazon's the regret is likely diminished but as the author stated, Does this increase of choice turn people into maximizers? I think Schwarz does suggest this strongly without any evidence, however I can see his point. I wonder whether maximizing consuming behaviors (which are measurable) are in any way correlated with the explosion of internet shopping services. Something Schwarz didn't touch at all is a good explanation on why Satisficers although could have as high standards as maximizers, do not turn into the dark side What is the reason for this?. Their beliefs are probably very different but how so? The same questions apply to perfectionists.
Another aspect I would have liked been discussed is what are the consequences for our society of having Maximizers or Satisficers? Are maximizers better workers but just more sad and regretful?
|
|
toby
New Member
Posts: 21 
|
Post by toby on Apr 18, 2016 4:07:09 GMT
I scored 34 in the test, which puts me into the category of satisficer according to Schwartz. What is interesting is that I have a high variance among the 13 questions, with many 1s and a few 6s and 7s. I guess this suggests that I’m a satisficer on some domains and a maximizer on some others.
But if we put the difference between maximizing and satisficing in the frame of the rational cost/benefit analysis, then it’s all about comparing the potential expected gain of maximizing against the cost (time, effort etc.) and there can be big differences on the weight determined for the factors for the “maximizers” and “satisficers”. Like a maximizer might value the time he spends on comparing the alternatives less valuable and consider the frustration of not having the best choice to be of great importance. Similarly, people also value the potential gain very differently.
Also, Schwartz suggests being a “satisficer” contributes to our psychological and emotional well-being. Isn’t this essentially being a maximizer on well-being? Why would a real satisficer bother reading a whole book on whether he should be a satisficer or a maximizer instead of “settles for being whatever he is and doesn’t worry about the possibility that might be something better”?
|
|
|
|
Post by JoselynMcD on Apr 18, 2016 16:47:42 GMT
This chapter should have come with a trigger warning (only half kidding). I'm 100% a maximizer in the categories that count (education, spending, careers, etc) and I am often in a state of buyer's remorse (even pre-buying). Seeing the correlation between unhappiness and maximizing behavior was a bit challenging, but I think there's something there. I've always wished I had my sister's blase attitude about how she spends her money and her time- she's satisficer to the core.
However, there are certainly categories that I don't care about enough to expend this sort of energy, and I don't think it's a binary, but rather a spectrum that shifts depending on the context of decision making. Moreover, there are certainly problems with his methodology and the quizzes, at least upon first encounter, seem quite shallow and narrow; however, I do think he's onto something that is worth HCI research and discourse. Of course, shopping sites like Amazon and Ali Baba should consider how their search function might cater to maximizers vs. satifsicers. Personally, when using these kinds of sites, I generally search for 20 minutes for a product and then have something akin to a small panic attack and close my computer and go for an anxious walk. An interface that makes optimal suggestions for the maximizer user that takes into account the spectrum of factors (weighted) would be a great relief.
|
|
nhahn
New Member
Posts: 22
|
Post by nhahn on Apr 18, 2016 19:31:31 GMT
I wonder if there are certain tools in the way we search that support satisfier vs maximizer behavior. For example, there are "facets" that we use on amazon to do filtering. Like picking only the items that are shipped Prime (b/c we want them fast). This seems to support the satisficer need to have products meet a minimum criteria. Conversely, there are sorting tools that maximizers can use to optimize on certain dimensions (typically just one). (as an aside, would you want to be able to do multiple sortings on Amazon to maximize on a number of dimensions?).
In both of these cases, structured data seems to help both satisfiers and maximizers make their decisions. Individuals can filter and compare based on this structured data in order to choose between competing options. This leads me to wonder what the role of structural alignment is, then, in decision making. How important is it for individuals to pick out dimensions for comparison? What happens when something has a feature that doesn't align well? Do we end up over or underweighting those extra features?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrivera on Apr 18, 2016 19:55:35 GMT
A bunch of you all have pointed that it seems more like the maximizer vs satisficer debate isn't a binary choice, and I have to agree. In the article, Schwartz even states himself that he thinks there are certain things that make him more likely to take a maximizer approach over satisficing. I tend to be a maximizer to the core (I also score super high on that quiz :X), but there are things which I choose a satisficer approach for- for example, picking a restaurant or something to eat is often a struggle, so I usually just opt to be "okay" with requirements met that 1) it's edible, 2) I haven't had it too recently  . |
|
|
|
Post by stdang on Apr 18, 2016 20:04:39 GMT
What's interesting that I couldn't get out of my head while reading this paper is that the difference between a maximizer and satisficer is primarily a difference in weights of criterion in decision making. It is likely that satisficers or those closer to the satisficing end of the spectrum are simply prioritizing their own time and emotional costs of search into the decision of whether any given objective has been met during the search. Thus it seems likely that maximizing and satisficing are domain dependent phenomena where in some specific task or domain an individual is more or less likely to display one specific personality profile. Whether a person falls on one end of the spectrum or the other is likely based on their distribution of time/emotional priorities over a broad range of activities crossed with the frequency they conduct that activity.
Looking at the tendency to satisfice or maximize on a given task (eg shopping for clothing) might have interesting design implications when looking at the interaction of these values with others (eg: financial prudence). For instance, maximizing tendencies might be more appropriate for financial prudence because it has a net effect of delaying purchase decisions and thus slowing expense rates. However, it might also have the tendency to encourage more expensive purchases, thus in the case of a new snowboarder, the person might buy top of the line equipment instead of beginner or used equipment, which would save money initially. Then in the event that the individual doesn't end up liking snowboarding, there are greater losses due to sunk costs as a result of the general tendency to maximize as opposed to satisfice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Apr 19, 2016 1:01:32 GMT
I'd like to see this done on non-material consumption. I had a professor in undergrad that did a lot of work on the "missing out" phenomenon that's I guess becoming prevalent online. For those unfamiliar, this is the reason why we scroll endlessly or check for updates endlessly online. If maximizing is a credible tendency, it seems that maximizers might be more likely to be victims of missing out. Is maximizing, as it's defined here, just a fear of missing out on the best sweater?
Maybe digital services like Facebook already know this and cater toward maximizers as their best customers.
I'd also like to push back a little on the idea that satisficing is better for your happiness or quality of life. If we all satisficed all the time, we'd still be rubbing sticks together to make "good enough" fire.
|
|
|
|
Post by francesx on Apr 19, 2016 1:31:45 GMT
Re: 1) Are you a maximizer or satisficer (take the 13 question quiz in the chapter, brah)? Can you recall a situation in which you practiced each of these decision making styles?
I thought of myself as somewhere between a maximizer and satisficer, but I scored 42 (satisficer) and I am pretty happy with it for some reason ^^ I did make the decision for the score on each question based one 1-2 cases that I could remember or see myself making a choice on.
Re: 3) How can we design software and hardware interfaces to support satisficers and maximizers? Should we?
Exactly, should we? And if yes why? Can't we just let people be what they want to be?
|
|
|
|
Post by Anna on Apr 19, 2016 1:50:49 GMT
Like Mary Beth, I felt a little skeptical of the science behind the little 13-question quiz. A lot of us seemed to have a lot of variance, and the question set is so limited here that it's hard to really get an accurate picture. But I suppose the quiz is meant to be more of a little exercise to get us thinking about these topics. According to this quiz, I'm neither a maximizer nor a satisficer. I suppose that's accurate.
What is it called when you don't bother to try to maximize your decisions, because you know you will never succeed, so you just choose something, already regretting it while you're still in the process of making the decision? Because I think that's what I do for a lot of things. Actually, I just avoid decisions whenever possible. But then sometimes I spend agonizingly long amounts of time trying to decide something, and I often end by just not deciding at all, or making someone else decide for me. Though recently I decided I would just start making decisions, and making them quickly. Which I think was me deciding to be a satisficer. But I don't think I actually started doing that yet. Right, yeah, I'm gonna do that. Okay.
|
|
judy
New Member
Posts: 22
|
Post by judy on Apr 19, 2016 2:02:50 GMT
Disconnected thoughts:
I like the call-out to Simon and the critique of efficiency.
But optimizing still makes more sense to me than maximizing/satisficing.
There's something I find icky about personality types. I guess I want to feel like I have more control, more agency, am more rational.
I think claiming that all people fit into one of two categories is pretty ballsy.
Again, I feel like value systems really belong in this conversation. Buying the right product, listening to the right music, eating at the best restaurant--are signals of status, intelligence and taste. Some of those signals are more important to some people than others. So, I would guess that some people likely to be maximizers for a certain set of activities. That feels more true to my experience. I don't maximize when it comes to fashion, for example, but I do maximize when it comes to books or tv shows. But then as a counter-example I think of Jeff Rez.--who I'm pretty sure knows more than me about every single category of things that exist. Every conversation with Jeff I learn about a new thing he's an expert in (I think last time it was small batch gins). I am in awe at his knowledge, and I think to myself, "I love gin. But If I had all of the time and resources in the world, I could never know as much about it as he does now."
I scored in the middle, but closer to maximizer. It seems absolutely ridiculous to assert that I'm happier than anyone who scored higher, or that I have a lower quality of life than someone who scored 40.
Nick, good point about non-matieral consumption. How does FOMO play in here? Is it the same thing as maximizing? Is "maximizing" news (whether national, pop, or personal), the same thing as buying the right sweater?
It's hard for me to think about applications of this idea, because it feels really problematic.
|
|
|
|
Post by xuwang on Apr 19, 2016 2:23:17 GMT
From the questions in the chapter, i’m definitely a maximizer, one example is when i’m watching TV, i always go over all the channels and pick one in the end, even if i come across a program I like, I’d still want to check out all other programs before I finally decide. i think in this paper, the author favored satisficer to maximizer. And I agree what the author pointed out that a true maximizer should be aware of how much energy he should put into making decisions, so that he could stop after a certain amount of search and finally decide. I think a certain amount of search will be helpful in decision making, if we always choose the first option that meets all the standards and not explore, i think we’re also losing information or chances to try new things.
For interfaces, as one question asked in the survey, how often do we refer to ranks of movies, songs, etc. I thinking improving the ranking list based on different criterions, suggesting best sellers which takes into some personal constraint into consideration could help. Actually, I think for maximizer, sometimes we just choose the best seller, that could also save time and energy.
|
|
?
. 
