When one desires too much of a good thing: The compromise effect under maximizing tendencies

Mao, Wen

doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2015.04.007

Cited by 50 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 84 publications

(145 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To check whether the priming task of maximizing and satisficing mind‐sets was effective, we conducted a pretest ( N = 178) in which participants indicated the motivation for their choice on a 7‐point scale anchored by “choosing one(s) that is (are) good enough” (1) and “choosing the best one” (7) (Mao, ). Higher scores indicate greater maximizing orientation.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How a maximizing orientation affects trade‐offs between desirability and feasibility: The role of outcome‐ versus process‐focused decision making

Hsieh

Yalch

2019

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research examines how maximizers make decisions when they must trade‐off between desirability and feasibility attributes. Across four studies, we demonstrate that maximizers tend to prefer choices offering more desirability to those offering more feasibility and respond more favorably to a product's advertising when it highlights desirability more than feasibility attributes. Furthermore, we show that maximizers' focus on outcomes rather than processes drives their preference for desirability, such that changing from an outcome to a process focus can redirect their interest from desirability to feasibility. By contrast, satisficers do not prefer products higher in desirability to those higher in feasibility and are not more receptive to ads highlighting desirability attributes. Furthermore, because satisficers may focus on both the outcome and the process, priming either one is redundant and does not alter their preference for desirability or feasibility.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How a maximizing orientation affects trade‐offs between desirability and feasibility: The role of outcome‐ versus process‐focused decision making

Hsieh

Yalch

2019

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This term has a long-standing history with a cultural evolution that resulted in variations in usage, interpretation and overall meaning (Fumurescu, 2013). In the extant literature, compromise is frequently explored in choice situations (Chuang, Cheng, Chang & Chiang, 2013;Simonson & Tversky, 1992), with the compromise effect referring to people's preference for intermediate options that enable them to avoid extremes (Carroll & Vallen, 2014;Cova, Pace & Skålén, 2015;Mao, 2016).…”

Section: A Fresh Look At Compensatory Consumption -Compensation or Comentioning

confidence: 99%

Compensatory consumption and consumer compromises: a state-of-the-art review

Köles

Wells

Tadajewski

2017

Journal of Marketing Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Compensatory consumption has been an increasingly researched yet widely debated area of consumer behaviour over the last 20 years. Extant research formulates the term as overwhelmingly negative, largely due to the simplistic and fragmented conceptualisations assumed in prior work. The purpose of the current paper is to present a comprehensive review of the umbrella term of compensatory consumption, incorporating a continuum of behaviours and accounting for the pre-and post-consumption periods including both positive and negative viewpoints. In addition, expanding upon the theory of need satisfaction, the current paper introduces a novel conceptual distinction between compensation and compromise. Finally, a proposed theoretical framework is presented that differentiates between compensatory and compromisory consumption based on the extent of consumer consciousness, rationality and rationalisation. Future research directions are offered.

show abstract

“…Maximizing has long been studied in psychology and consumer behavior (e.g., Chang et al, 2011;Iyengar et al, 2006;Mao, 2016;Purvis, Howell, & Iyer, 2011;Schwartz et al, 2002;Simon, 1955) and involves two key features: The goal of getting the best, and a tendency to thoroughly search through options (Levav et al, 2012; NARDINI AND SELA | 731 Ma & Roese, 2014;Schwartz et al, 2002). Compared with satisficers, maximizers tend to spend more time and effort searching for the best choices (Iyengar et al, 2006;Levav et al, 2012).…”

Section: How By-attribute Self-customization Backfires: the Role Ofmentioning

confidence: 99%

When self‐customization backfires: The role of a maximizing mindset

Nardini

Sela

2019

Psychology and Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Self‐customization in online shopping contexts readily offers an abundance of options for consumers. However, the sheer amount of information can quickly become overwhelming. One way to give people the freedom to choose without overwhelming them with information is to simplify the decision process by breaking it down into a series of smaller steps. Contrary to a common assumption that simpler decisions increase choice likelihood, however, this study demonstrates that a simple by‐attribute self‐customization process may activate a maximizing mindset, which increases people's desire to find better options and decreases their satisfaction with the ones available. Consequently, simplifying the self‐customization process can sometimes backfire by decreasing choice likelihood. Three studies suggest that although by‐attribute self‐customization formats are easier to choose from, compared with more complex matrix formats, they may sometimes—paradoxically—increase choice deferral. The findings suggest that a maximizing mindset mediates this effect, casting doubt on information‐based alternative explanations. The findings also suggest that whether by‐attribute self‐customization increases or decreases choice likelihood may depend on the presence of objective quality cues, which indicate that an objectively‐best option can be found. This study furthers the understanding of how decision difficulty and maximizing influence self‐customization decisions.

show abstract

When one desires too much of a good thing: The compromise effect under maximizing tendencies

Cited by 50 publications

References 84 publications

How a maximizing orientation affects trade‐offs between desirability and feasibility: The role of outcome‐ versus process‐focused decision making

How a maximizing orientation affects trade‐offs between desirability and feasibility: The role of outcome‐ versus process‐focused decision making

Compensatory consumption and consumer compromises: a state-of-the-art review

When self‐customization backfires: The role of a maximizing mindset

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About