IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v15y2020i1p7-24_2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What does it mean to maximize? “Decision difficulty,” indecisiveness, and the jingle-jangle fallacies in the measurement of maximizing

Author

Listed:
  • Cheek, Nathan N.
  • Goebel, Jacob

Abstract

For two decades, researchers have investigated the correlates and consequences of individual differences in maximizing, the tendency to pursue the goal of making the best possible choice by extensively seeking out and comparing alternatives. In this time, many different conceptualizations of maximizing have been proposed, including several that incorporate a construct called “decision difficulty.” We propose that including decision difficulty in measures of maximizing is problematic because the tendency to experience difficulty when making decisions is a separate individual difference construct already studied independently of maximizing — namely, indecisiveness. Across two studies (total N = 639), we find that scales measuring decision difficulty and indecisiveness are strongly correlated (r’s ≥ .85), load on the same component in a principal component analysis, and show a very similar pattern of correlations with related variables. Moreover, decision difficulty and indecisiveness scales both show a divergent pattern of correlations when compared to measures of maximizing. We argue that decision difficulty scales are best interpreted as tapping the same underlying tendency as indecisiveness scales, and conclude that the tendency to experience difficulty in decision making is best conceptualized not as a component of maximizing, but rather a cause or consequence of it.

Suggested Citation

  • Cheek, Nathan N. & Goebel, Jacob, 2020. "What does it mean to maximize? “Decision difficulty,” indecisiveness, and the jingle-jangle fallacies in the measurement of maximizing," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 7-24, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:1:p:7-24_2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500006884/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:1:p:7-24_2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.