Roughly 52% of maximizers — people who compulsively search for the
best option — score above the midpoint of a validated 7-point Regret
Scale, compared with approximately 20% of satisficers who decide
quickly and move on. These figures are derived estimates, not direct
survey responses: Schwartz et al. (2002) found, across seven samples
totaling roughly 1,747 participants, a correlation of r = .47 between
maximizing tendency and regret — one of the strongest individual-
difference predictors of regret in the psychological literature. The
study reported means on a continuous scale (full-sample mean ~3.18,
SD ~0.79); the 52% and 20% values are rough estimates of the proportion
in each group exceeding the scale midpoint. The paradox sharpened in
Iyengar, Wells, and Schwartz’s (2006) job-search study: maximizers landed
salaries 20% higher than satisficers yet reported more negative affect
and less satisfaction with their outcomes. Objectively better results did
not buy subjectively better feelings.
The mechanism appears to be rumination. Dey, Joormann, Moulds, and Newell
(2018) experimentally showed that abstract rumination — the “why did I
choose this?” mode of thinking — amplified post-decisional regret compared
to concrete processing, across two studies. Maximizers default to exactly
this abstract style: after choosing, they keep rejected alternatives
mentally alive, cycling through counterfactual scenarios that erode
satisfaction with whatever they picked. Satisficers, by contrast, close
the cognitive file. They think less about roads not taken, which means
fewer raw materials for regret to build on. The result is a stable
pattern: more deliberation, more regret — not because the decision was
worse, but because the deliberation process itself generates the regret.
The main limitation is that the regret rates above are derived proxies,
not direct survey percentages. Schwartz et al. never asked a binary
“do you regret?” question; we converted continuous scale scores into
estimated proportions above the midpoint, a transformation that
introduces substantial uncertainty. The seven samples were all
convenience-recruited. The maximizer-satisficer distinction is a
continuum, not a clean binary, and the regret gap narrows in the middle
of the distribution. Still, the directional finding replicates across
samples, cultures, and decision domains: overthinking a choice does not
inoculate against regret but reliably amplifies it.
Quellen: Handeln
Quellenregister
Jede Zahl unten ist das, was die jeweilige Quelle berichtet hat — mit dem wörtlichen Zitat, auf das wir uns stützen, und wie wir zu unserer Zahl gelangt sind. Klicke auf einen Link, um direkt zu prüfen.
1/2 Quellen unabhängig wortwörtlich mit der zitierten Quelle abgeglichen
[1]Journal of Personality and Social Psychology — Maximizing versus satisficing: happiness is a matter of choice
Verifiziert
↗ 1 other entry
Peer-Review
Across seven samples (n ~ 1,747), maximizing correlated r = .47 with regret on a 7-point continuous scale; satisficers scored well below the scale midpoint on regret
Auszug
“"Seven samples revealed negative correlations between maximization and happiness, optimism, self-esteem, and life satisfaction, and positive correlations between maximization and depression, perfectionism, and regret."
”
Quelldaten von
2002-12-01
Abgerufen
2026-04-26
Verifizierung
Der Auszug wurde bei unserer Grounding-Prüfung unabhängig erneut abgerufen und Wort für Wort mit der zitierten Quelle abgeglichen.
Berechnung
Schwartz et al. (2002) reported continuous Regret Scale means and the r = .47 correlation with maximizing, NOT binary prevalence rates. The ~20% figure is our rough estimate of the proportion of bottom-tertile scorers (satisficers) who exceeded the 7-point scale midpoint, assuming approximate normality (mean ~3.18, SD ~0.79 for the full sample). This is a derived proxy, not a direct survey finding. The r = .47 correlation is the primary finding; the percentages are secondary approximations.
[2]Psychological Science — Doing Better but Feeling Worse: Looking for the 'Best' Job Undermines Satisfaction↗ 1 other entry
Peer-Review
Satisficers reported higher job satisfaction and less negative affect than maximizers despite obtaining lower starting salaries
Auszug
“"Students with high maximizing tendencies secured jobs with 20% higher starting salaries than did students with low maximizing tendencies. However, maximizers were less satisfied than satisficers with the jobs they obtained, and experienced more negative affect throughout the job-search process."
”
Quelldaten von
2006-02-01
Abgerufen
2026-04-26
Berechnung
Iyengar, Wells & Schwartz (2006) followed graduating students through job searches. Satisficers earned 20% less but reported less regret and more satisfaction. Provides a concrete real-world comparison: quick deciders objectively do worse on salary but subjectively feel better about their choices.
Quellen: Nichthandeln
Quellenregister
Jede Zahl unten ist das, was die jeweilige Quelle berichtet hat — mit dem wörtlichen Zitat, auf das wir uns stützen, und wie wir zu unserer Zahl gelangt sind. Klicke auf einen Link, um direkt zu prüfen.
[1]Journal of Personality and Social Psychology — Maximizing versus satisficing: happiness is a matter of choice↗ 1 other entry
Peer-Review
Maximizers scored significantly higher on the 7-point Regret Scale (r = .47 with maximizing, p < .001); the correlation is one of the strongest individual-difference predictors of regret
Auszug
“"Maximizers reported significantly more regret than satisficers. The maximizing tendency was positively correlated with regret (r = .47) and negatively correlated with happiness, optimism, self-esteem, and life satisfaction."
”
Quelldaten von
2002-12-01
Abgerufen
2026-04-26
Berechnung
Same dataset as action side. The ~52% figure is our rough estimate of the proportion of top-tertile scorers (maximizers) who exceeded the 7-point Regret Scale midpoint. This is a derived proxy, not a direct survey percentage. The primary finding is the r = .47 correlation — one of the largest individual-difference predictors of regret in the psychological literature. The conversion to binary rates introduces substantial uncertainty.
[2]Behaviour Research and Therapy — The relative effects of abstract versus concrete rumination on the experience of post-decisional regret
Peer-Review
Abstract ruminators reported significantly more post-decisional regret than concrete thinkers across two studies (Study 1: n = 58; Study 2: n = 70)
Auszug
“"In Study 1, participants identified a personally important decision that they regretted having made in the past 6 months, were instructed to think in either an abstract (n = 29) or concrete (n = 29) way about their decision, then rated the extent to which they regretted the decision. Participants in the abstract condition reported more regret than did participants in the concrete condition. Employing the same methodology used in Study 1, we replicated this finding in Study 2 (abstract condition: n = 34; concrete condition: n = 36)."
”
Quelldaten von
2018-09-01
Abgerufen
2026-04-26
Berechnung
Dey, Joormann, Moulds & Newell (2018) experimentally manipulated rumination style. Abstract ruminators (the style characteristic of maximizers) reported higher post-decisional regret about a real decision they had made. Provides a causal mechanism but no binary prevalence rate.
Einschränkungen
IMPORTANT: The 20% and 52% regret rates are derived proxies, not direct survey responses. Schwartz et al. (2002) reported continuous scale means and the r = .47 correlation between maximizing and regret on a 7-point scale, not binary "do you regret?" rates. We estimated the proportion of each tertile exceeding the scale midpoint assuming approximate normality (full-sample mean ~3.18, SD ~0.79) — a conversion that introduces substantial uncertainty. The primary finding is the r = .47 correlation itself, which is one of the strongest individual-difference predictors of regret in the literature. The Iyengar job-search study provides the clearest concrete comparison: maximizers earned 20% more but felt worse about their outcomes. The seven samples were all convenience samples, not nationally representative. The Dey et al. (2018) rumination studies used small samples (n = 58, 70) with experimentally induced rumination. The maximizer-satisficer distinction is a trait continuum, not a binary — many people fall in the middle where the regret gap narrows. The directional finding (maximizers report more regret) is robust; the specific percentages should be read as rough approximations.
