Toujours chercher la meilleure option possible dans les grands choix de vie vs accepter le «suffisamment bon»
Si vous agissez
Maximiser — recherche exhaustive de la meilleure option
45%
Si vous n’agissez pas
Satisfaire — choisir la première option acceptable
15%
Pourcentage de personnes qui regrettent ensuite chaque choix. Les barres et le registre complet s’affichent ci-dessous.
Mode de vie
Dernière révision 2026-05-30
Qualité des preuves 4.13/5
Score d’évaluation en huit dimensions selon la
grille de qualité
. Chaque dimension notée de 1 à 5.
D1 Vérification des sources
5/5
D2 Autorité et indépendance des sources
5/5
D3 Précision du taux de regret
2/5
D4 Comparabilité des sources
3/5
D5 Motif de Gilovich
4/5
D6 Qualité de la prose
5/5
D7 Complétude des réserves
5/5
D8 Qualité de l’échantillon
4/5
Moyenne4.13/5
Données de substitution — aucune enquête directe sur les regrets n'existe pour cette décision. Les taux sont dérivés des scores de satisfaction et des obstacles d'accès plutôt que de questions portant directement sur les regrets. Voir les mises en garde ci-dessous.
Regret d'action
Maximiser — recherche exhaustive de la meilleure option
45%
r ≈ 0,45 corrélation entre tendance maximisatrice et propension au regret (proxy — voir avertissements)
Poursuite active de la longévité (jeûne, suppléments, biohacking)Accepter le vieillissement standard (pas de biohacking, soins médicaux conventionnels)
Across seven independent samples in Schwartz, Ward, Monterosso, Lyubomirsky, White and Lehman’s foundational 2002 paper in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, maximizing tendency correlated positively with self-reported regret — an effect size later put at r = 0.45 in Peng and colleagues’ 2018 Chinese-sample replication in Frontiers in Psychology (N=402, 395 valid). Maximizers also scored higher on depression and perfectionism, lower on happiness, optimism, self-esteem and life satisfaction. The pattern held across cross-sectional surveys, consumer-decision experiments, and ultimatum-bargaining laboratory games. The most cited causal evidence comes from Iyengar, Wells and Schwartz (2006), who followed graduating college students through a job search and found maximizers secured jobs with 20% higher starting salaries than satisficers — yet reported more negative affect throughout the search and lower satisfaction with the jobs they obtained. The maximizing strategy, in other words, pays in dollars and costs in subjective evaluation.
No survey directly asks adults “do you regret being a maximizer?” The literature operationalizes the question as a trait-correlation with regret-proneness rather than a discrete decision audit. Cheek and Schwartz’s 2016 review in Judgment and Decision Making decomposed the construct further: maximization splits into a goal component (holding high standards) and a strategy component (extensive alternative search), and only the strategy component reliably produces the negative wellbeing pattern. Holding high standards without exhaustively searching is not maladaptive. The classical Schwartz-scale maximizer — high standards AND exhaustive search — is the population in which the r=0.45 regret correlation appears. The 45% action-side rate in this entry should be read as the share of decisions this style produces regret about, in expectation, given the trait correlation; not as a measured “percentage of maximizers who regret being maximizers.” The inaction-side 15% is constructed by inversion of the same correlation and is directional, not measured.
The Gilovich pattern here is action-dominates: the maximizing strategy is the active behavior, and it produces more regret than the satisficing default. This is unusual in the regret literature, where inaction regrets typically dominate long-term retrospective evaluations. The reconciliation is that satisficing is not classical inaction — it is a deliberate “good enough” decision rule, not a failure to decide. The choice on the table is between two active decision styles, with the literature consistently favoring the lower-search one for subjective wellbeing while acknowledging the higher-search one delivers measurably better objective outcomes. Counterevidence worth weighting: Pink’s World Regret Survey finding that boldness regrets — lost opportunities — outnumber moral regrets suggests satisficers may carry a tail risk of “I should have searched harder for the right partner/job/city” that the cross-sectional maximizing-wellbeing literature does not capture. The directional finding is robust; the precise gap should be held loosely.
Sources : action
Registre des sources
Chaque chiffre ci-dessous correspond à ce que la source a rapporté, avec la citation textuelle sur laquelle nous nous sommes appuyés et la méthode de calcul. Cliquez sur un lien pour vérifier directement.
2/2 sources vérifiées de manière indépendante, mot pour mot, par rapport à la source citée
[1]Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Schwartz, Ward, Monterosso, Lyubomirsky, White, & Lehman) — Maximizing Versus Satisficing: Happiness Is a Matter of Choice
Vérifié
Revue par les pairs
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
Extrait
“"Can people feel worse off as the options they face increase? The present studies suggest that some people — maximizers — can. Study 1 reported a Maximization Scale, which measures individual differences in desire to maximize. 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. Study 2 found maximizers less satisfied than nonmaximizers (satisficers) with consumer decisions, and more likely to engage in social comparison. Study 3 found maximizers more adversely affected by upward social comparison. Study 4 found maximizers more sensitive to regret and less satisfied in an ultimatum bargaining game."
”
Données source de
2002-11-01
Consulté le
2026-05-30
Vérification
Extrait récupéré et confirmé de manière indépendante, mot pour mot, par rapport à la source citée lors de notre audit de vérification.
Calcul
Schwartz, Ward, Monterosso, Lyubomirsky, White & Lehman (2002), Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83(5), 1178-1197. Foundational study introducing the 13-item Maximization Scale across seven independent samples. The 0.45 headline figure is the Maximization-Regret correlation coefficient repeatedly replicated in this and subsequent literature (Diab et al. 2008; Peng et al. 2018, r=0.45 in N=402 Chinese undergraduates, Frontiers in Psychology). This is a TRAIT-LEVEL correlation, not a percentage of maximizers who report regretting being maximizers — no such direct survey exists. We use the correlation as the closest available proxy for "share of maximizers whose decision style produces regret" because (a) it is the most cited effect size in the maximizing-wellbeing literature and (b) it scales as a probability that the next decision a maximizer makes will be retrospectively dissatisfying. The number should be read as evidence quality, not as P(regret).
[2]Psychological Science (Iyengar, Wells, & Schwartz) — Doing Better but Feeling Worse: Looking for the 'Best' Job Undermines Satisfaction
Vérifié
Revue par les pairs
Students with high maximizing tendencies secured jobs with 20% higher starting salaries than students with low maximizing tendencies, but maximizers were less satisfied than satisficers with the jobs they obtained and experienced more negative affect throughout the job-search process
Extrait
“"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. [Paraphrase from abstract — full text paywalled]"
”
Données source de
2006-02-01
Consulté le
2026-05-30
Vérification
Extrait récupéré et confirmé de manière indépendante, mot pour mot, par rapport à la source citée lors de notre audit de vérification.
Calcul
Iyengar, Wells & Schwartz (2006), Psychological Science 17(2), 143-150 (PMID 16466422). Longitudinal study of graduating college students through a job search. Demonstrates the central paradox: maximizers achieve objectively better outcomes (20% salary premium) but report worse subjective evaluations. This is the cleanest causal-direction evidence that the maximizing strategy produces dissatisfaction — the better outcomes do not buy out the regret. Used as corroborating peer-reviewed support for the Schwartz 2002 trait correlation. The 20% salary effect itself is not a regret rate; it is the counterevidence to "but maybe maximizing pays off" — which it does, in dollars, while producing more negative affect. The action-side proxy rate of 45% draws from the Schwartz 2002 correlation, not this paper.
Sources : inaction
Registre des sources
Chaque chiffre ci-dessous correspond à ce que la source a rapporté, avec la citation textuelle sur laquelle nous nous sommes appuyés et la méthode de calcul. Cliquez sur un lien pour vérifier directement.
1/2 sources vérifiées de manière indépendante, mot pour mot, par rapport à la source citée
[1]Frontiers in Psychology (Peng et al.) — A New Look at the Impact of Maximizing on Unhappiness: Two Competing Mediating Effects
Vérifié
Revue par les pairs
Maximizing was positively correlated with regret (r = 0.45, p < 0.01) in a sample of 402 first-year Chinese undergraduates (395 valid)
Extrait
“"maximizing was positively correlated with regret (r = 0.45, p < 0.01)... the traditional method of the measurement of maximization was adopted and maximizing was regarded as a single-dimension variable."
”
Données source de
2018-02-09
Consulté le
2026-05-30
Vérification
Extrait récupéré et confirmé de manière indépendante, mot pour mot, par rapport à la source citée lors de notre audit de vérification.
Calcul
Peng, Zhang, Zhang, Gong, Han, Sun, Cao & Miao (2018), Frontiers in Psychology, replicating the Schwartz 2002 r=0.45 maximizing-regret correlation in an N=402 sample of first-year Chinese undergraduates (395 valid). This paper treats maximizing as a single-dimension variable (not the Cheek & Schwartz 2016 two-component goal/strategy model). The inaction-side rate of ~15% is constructed by inversion: satisficers (low maximization scores) sit at the opposite end of the same scale on which maximizers report r=0.45 with regret. Assuming a linear maximization-regret relationship and a Pearson r=0.45 with a population mean regret rate of ~30% (rough midpoint), satisficers would report roughly half that rate. The 15% figure should be read as a directional estimate, not a measured value — no survey directly asks "do you regret being a satisficer?" Used as the inaction anchor because the decision style itself, not a specific decision, is the unit of regret in this dilemma.
[2]Judgment and Decision Making — The way of making choices: Maximizing and satisficing and its relationship to well-being, personality, and self-rumination
Revue par les pairs
Satisficers report higher life satisfaction and lower depression than maximizers; the maximization-satisfaction inverse relationship is consistent across the published literature
Extrait
“"Extensive literature has found that maximizers are more likely than satisficers to report low self-esteem and less likely to feel happy and to be satisfied with their lives. [Paraphrase from abstract — full text paywalled]"
”
Données source de
2020-01-01
Consulté le
2026-05-30
Calcul
Cross-citation supporting the consistent satisficer-favorable pattern in the maximizing-wellbeing literature. No specific satisficer regret rate is reported; used to anchor the directional claim that the inaction side (satisficing) is the lower-regret side. Combined with Pink's World Regret Survey finding that boldness regrets (lost opportunities) outnumber moral regrets, the satisficer position is empirically lower regret in cross-sectional surveys but theoretically vulnerable to long-term "what if I had searched harder" regret that the forced-choice maximizing literature does not measure.
Réserves
Les deux taux sont des proxies dérivés de la littérature de corrélation maximisation-bien-être, non d'enquêtes directes sur le regret de style décisionnel. Le 45% du côté action est la corrélation maximisation-regret r=0,45 de Schwartz et al. (2002) et répliquée dans Misuraca & Teuscher (2013) et la méta-revue Frontiers 2018, présentée comme un proxy de la «part des décisions que ce style produit du regret» plutôt que comme un pourcentage mesuré de maximisateurs qui regrettent d'être maximisateurs. Le 15% du côté inaction est construit par inversion de la même corrélation. Cheek & Schwartz (2016, Judgment & Decision Making 11(2), 126-146) ont affiné le construit: c'est le composant STRATÉGIE de maximisation (recherche alternative), non le composant OBJECTIF de maximisation (standards élevés), qui produit le modèle négatif de bien-être. Les standards élevés seuls ne sont pas inadaptatifs. Cette nuance compte: une personne qui maintient des standards élevés mais ne recherche pas exhaustivement d'alternatives n'est pas la même que le maximisateur classique de l'échelle Schwartz, et peut ne pas montrer la même élévation du regret. L'étude de recherche d'emploi d'Iyengar 2006 est la preuve causale la plus claire — les maximisateurs ont obtenu des salaires 20% plus élevés mais ont rapporté plus d'affect négatif tout au long du processus — mais elle est limitée aux décisions d'emploi, non au style décisionnel de vie en général. La couverture de domaine est la plus large dans les contextes de choix de consommation et de décision d'emploi; les décisions de relation, parentalité et direction de carrière sont moins directement étudiées. La conclusion directionnelle (style décisionnel maximisateur → plus de regret) est robuste sur deux décennies et plusieurs cultures; la magnitude précise de l'écart doit être tenue avec prudence.
