IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/mktlet/v25y2014i1p77-91.html

Are maximizers blind to the future? When today’s best does not make for a better tomorrow

Author

Listed:
  • Ali Besharat

  • Daniel Ladik

  • François Carrillat

Abstract

A number of studies have demonstrated that a maximizer’s tendency to settle for only the best choice option leads them to discard the past and feel dissatisfied in the present. The current study, however, investigates whether maximizers’ quests for perfection blinds them toward the future. A study of 522 respondents drawn from a probabilistic sample of the US population examines a series of hypotheses related to how a maximizer views the future. Consistent with the resource slack theory (i.e., the overestimation of the amount of time that will be available in the future), maximization tendencies diminish the consumer’s ability to look ahead to the future, both directly and indirectly, through the intervening roles of both regret and polychronicity (i.e., multitasking). Maximizers do not estimate future task demand accurately as they associate strong feelings of regret with their previous choices and dismiss them as poor decisions. Additionally, low polychronicity hinders their capacity to set aside sufficient time resources to be devoted to future tasks when engrossed in a current task. Implications for managers and researchers are discussed before concluding with further research avenues and limitations. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Suggested Citation

  • Ali Besharat & Daniel Ladik & François Carrillat, 2014. "Are maximizers blind to the future? When today’s best does not make for a better tomorrow," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 77-91, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:mktlet:v:25:y:2014:i:1:p:77-91
    DOI: 10.1007/s11002-013-9243-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11002-013-9243-4
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11002-013-9243-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Benjamin Scheibehenne & Rainer Greifeneder & Peter M. Todd, 2010. "Can There Ever Be Too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice Overload," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 37(3), pages 409-425, October.
    2. Gergana Y. Nenkov & Maureen Morrin & Andrew Ward & Barry Schwartz & John Hulland, 2008. "A short form of the Maximization Scale: Factor structure, reliability and validity studies," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3, pages 371-388, June.
    3. Linda Lai, 2011. "Maximizing and customer loyalty: Are maximizers less loyal?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(4), pages 307-313, June.
    4. Dalia L. Diab & Michael A. Gillespie & Scott Highhouse, 2008. "Are maximizers really unhappy? The measurement of maximizing tendency," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3, pages 364-370, June.
    5. Shane Frederick & Nathan Novemsky & Jing Wang & Ravi Dhar & Stephen Nowlis, 2009. "Opportunity Cost Neglect," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 36(4), pages 553-561, December.
    6. Tsiros, Michael & Mittal, Vikas, 2000. "Regret: A Model of Its Antecedents and Consequences in Consumer Decision Making," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 26(4), pages 401-417, March.
    7. Hayhoe, Celia Ray & Leach, Lauren & Turner, Pamela R., 1999. "Discriminating the number of credit cards held by college students using credit and money attitudes," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 643-656, December.
    8. Bearden, William O & Netemeyer, Richard G & Teel, Jesse E, 1989. "Measurement of Consumer Susceptibility to Interpersonal Influence," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 15(4), pages 473-481, March.
    9. Kaufman, Carol Felker & Lane, Paul M & Lindquist, Jay D, 1991. "Exploring More Than 24 Hours a Day: A Preliminary Investigation of Polychronic Time Use," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 18(3), pages 392-401, December.
    10. Ashwani Monga & Rajesh Bagchi, 2012. "Years, Months, and Days versus 1, 12, and 365: The Influence of Units versus Numbers," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 39(1), pages 185-198.
    11. John G. Lynch Jr. & Richard G. Netemeyer & Stephen A. Spiller & Alessandra Zammit, 2010. "A Generalizable Scale of Propensity to Plan: The Long and the Short of Planning for Time and for Money," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 37(1), pages 108-128, June.
    12. Tilottama Chowdhury & S. Ratneshwar & Praggyan Mohanty, 2009. "The time-harried shopper: Exploring the differences between maximizers and satisficers," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 155-167, June.
    13. François Carrillat & Daniel Ladik & Renaud Legoux, 2011. "When the decision ball keeps rolling: An investigation of the Sisyphus effect among maximizing consumers," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 283-296, September.
    14. Stephen A. Spiller, 2011. "Opportunity Cost Consideration," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 38(4), pages 595-610.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Saad, Gad & Sejean, Richard & Greengross, Gil & Cherkas, Lynn, 2020. "Are identical twins more similar in their decision making styles than their fraternal counterparts?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 638-643.
    2. Katyal, Kanupriya & Dawra, Jagrook & Soni, Nitin, 2022. "The posh, the paradoxical and the phony: Are there individual differences between consumers of luxury, masstige and counterfeit brands?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 191-204.
    3. Harris, Patricia & Dall’Olmo Riley, Francesca & Hand, Chris, 2021. "Multichannel shopping: The effect of decision making style on shopper journey configuration and satisfaction," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    4. Alison, Laurence & Shortland, Neil & Herrod-Taylor, Cicely & Stevens, Catherine & Christiansen, Paul, 2024. "Medical maximization: The effect of personality on triage decision-making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 352(C).
    5. Nathan N. Cheek & Barry Schwartz, 2016. "On the meaning and measurement of maximization," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(2), pages 126-146, March.
    6. Daniel C. Brannon & Brandon W. Soltwisch, 2017. "If it has lots of bells and whistles, it must be the best: how maximizers and satisficers evaluate feature-rich versus feature-poor products," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 651-662, December.
    7. Michail D. Kokkoris, 2018. "When the purpose lies within: Maximizers and satisfaction with autotelic choices," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 73-85, March.
    8. Misuraca, Raffaella & Fasolo, Barbara, 2018. "Maximizing versus satisficing in the digital age: disjoint scales and the case for “construct consensus”," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 84324, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Misuraca, Raffaella & Fasolo, Barbara, 2018. "Maximizing versus satisficing in the digital age: disjoint scales and the case for “construct consensus”," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 84324, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Ana Alina Tudoran, 2022. "A machine learning approach to identifying decision-making styles for managing customer relationships," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(1), pages 351-374, March.
    3. Harris, Patricia & Dall’Olmo Riley, Francesca & Hand, Chris, 2021. "Multichannel shopping: The effect of decision making style on shopper journey configuration and satisfaction," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    4. Nathan N. Cheek & Barry Schwartz, 2016. "On the meaning and measurement of maximization," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(2), pages 126-146, March.
    5. Muthaffar, Aisha & Vilches-Montero, Sonia, 2023. "Empowering retailers: A bounded rationality perspective to enhancing omnichannel journey satisfaction," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    6. Nicole M. Giacopelli & Kaila M. Simpson & Reeshad S. Dalal & Kristen L. Randolph & Samantha J. Holland, 2013. "Maximizing as a predictor of job satisfaction and performance: A tale of three scales," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(4), pages 448-469, July.
    7. François Carrillat & Daniel Ladik & Renaud Legoux, 2011. "When the decision ball keeps rolling: An investigation of the Sisyphus effect among maximizing consumers," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 283-296, September.
    8. Tian Qiu & Yang Bai & Jingyi Lu, 2020. "Taking risks for the best: Maximizing and risk-taking tendencies," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(4), pages 499-508, July.
    9. Emilio Moyano-Díaz & Agustín Martínez-Molina & Fernando P. Ponce, 2014. "The price of gaining: maximization in decision-making, regret and life satisfaction," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(5), pages 500-509, September.
    10. Michail D. Kokkoris, 2018. "When the purpose lies within: Maximizers and satisfaction with autotelic choices," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 73-85, March.
    11. Kaeun Kim & Elizabeth Miller, 2017. "Vulnerable maximizers: The role of decision difficulty," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(5), pages 516-526, September.
    12. Linda Lai, 2011. "Maximizing and customer loyalty: Are maximizers less loyal?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(4), pages 307-313, June.
    13. Daniel C. Brannon & Brandon W. Soltwisch, 2017. "If it has lots of bells and whistles, it must be the best: how maximizers and satisficers evaluate feature-rich versus feature-poor products," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 651-662, December.
    14. Justin M. Weinhardt & Brendan J. Morse & Janna Chimeli, 2012. "An item response theory and factor analytic examination of two prominent maximizing tendency scales," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(5), pages 644-658, September.
    15. Nathan N. Cheek & Jacob Goebel, 2020. "What does it mean to maximize? “Decision difficulty,†indecisiveness, and the jingle-jangle fallacies in the measurement of maximizing," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(1), pages 7-24, January.
    16. Mark Heitmann & Andreas Herrmann, 2007. "Die Zufriedenheit mit dem Entscheidungsprozess als Determinante der Kundenbindung," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 59(5), pages 530-566, August.
    17. Brandon M. Turner & Hye Bin Rim & Nancy E. Betz & Thomas E. Nygren, 2012. "The Maximization Inventory," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(1), pages 48-60, January.
    18. Andrew E. Reed & Joseph A. Mikels & Corinna E. Lockenhoff, 2012. "Choosing with confidence: Self-efficacy and preferences for choice," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(2), pages 173-180, March.
    19. Khare, Adwait & Chowdhury, Tilottama G. & Morgan, Jeremy, 2021. "Maximizers and Satisficers: Can’t choose and Can’t reject," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 731-748.
    20. Geoffrey Fisher, 2021. "Intertemporal Choices Are Causally Influenced by Fluctuations in Visual Attention," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(8), pages 4961-4981, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:kap:mktlet:v:25:y:2014:i:1:p:77-91. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.