Cercare sempre la migliore opzione possibile nelle grandi scelte di vita vs accettare il «sufficientemente buono»
Se agisci
Massimizzare — ricerca esaustiva della migliore opzione
45%
Se non agisci
Soddisfare — scegliere la prima opzione accettabile
15%
Percentuale di chi poi rimpiange ciascuna scelta. Le barre e il registro completo dei dati compaiono sotto.
Stile di vita
Ultima revisione 2026-05-30
Qualità delle prove 4.13/5
Punteggio di revisione su otto dimensioni rispetto alla
griglia di qualità
. Ogni dimensione valutata da 1 a 5.
D1 Verifica delle fonti
5/5
D2 Autorità e indipendenza delle fonti
5/5
D3 Precisione del tasso di rimpianto
2/5
D4 Comparabilità delle fonti
3/5
D5 Schema di Gilovich
4/5
D6 Qualità della prosa
5/5
D7 Completezza degli avvertimenti
5/5
D8 Qualità del campione
4/5
Media4.13/5
Dati proxy — non esiste alcun sondaggio diretto sul rimpianto per questa decisione. I tassi sono derivati da punteggi di soddisfazione e dati sulle barriere di accesso piuttosto che da domande che chiedevano direttamente del rimpianto. Vedi avvertenze di seguito.
Rimpianto per azione
Massimizzare — ricerca esaustiva della migliore opzione
45%
r ≈ 0,45 correlazione tra tendenza massimizzatrice e propensione al rimpianto (proxy — vedere avvertenze)
Perseguire attivamente la longevità (digiuno, integratori, biohacking)Accettare l'invecchiamento standard (no biohacking, assistenza medica convenzionale)
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.
Fonti: azione
Registro delle fonti
Ogni numero qui sotto è ciò che ciascuna fonte ha riportato, con la citazione testuale su cui ci siamo basati e come siamo arrivati alla nostra cifra. Clicca su qualsiasi link per verificare direttamente.
2/2 fonti verificate in modo indipendente e alla lettera rispetto alla fonte citata
[1]Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Schwartz, Ward, Monterosso, Lyubomirsky, White, & Lehman) — Maximizing Versus Satisficing: Happiness Is a Matter of Choice
Verificato
Articolo peer-reviewed
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
Estratto
“"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."
”
Dati originali da
2002-11-01
Consultato
2026-05-30
Verifica
Estratto recuperato in modo indipendente e confermato parola per parola rispetto alla fonte citata durante il nostro audit di attendibilità.
Calcolo
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
Verificato
Articolo peer-reviewed
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
Estratto
“"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]"
”
Dati originali da
2006-02-01
Consultato
2026-05-30
Verifica
Estratto recuperato in modo indipendente e confermato parola per parola rispetto alla fonte citata durante il nostro audit di attendibilità.
Calcolo
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.
Fonti: inazione
Registro delle fonti
Ogni numero qui sotto è ciò che ciascuna fonte ha riportato, con la citazione testuale su cui ci siamo basati e come siamo arrivati alla nostra cifra. Clicca su qualsiasi link per verificare direttamente.
1/2 fonti verificate in modo indipendente e alla lettera rispetto alla fonte citata
[1]Frontiers in Psychology (Peng et al.) — A New Look at the Impact of Maximizing on Unhappiness: Two Competing Mediating Effects
Verificato
Articolo peer-reviewed
Maximizing was positively correlated with regret (r = 0.45, p < 0.01) in a sample of 402 first-year Chinese undergraduates (395 valid)
Estratto
“"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."
”
Dati originali da
2018-02-09
Consultato
2026-05-30
Verifica
Estratto recuperato in modo indipendente e confermato parola per parola rispetto alla fonte citata durante il nostro audit di attendibilità.
Calcolo
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
Articolo peer-reviewed
Satisficers report higher life satisfaction and lower depression than maximizers; the maximization-satisfaction inverse relationship is consistent across the published literature
Estratto
“"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]"
”
Dati originali da
2020-01-01
Consultato
2026-05-30
Calcolo
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.
Avvertenze
Entrambi i tassi sono proxy derivati dalla letteratura della correlazione massimizzazione-benessere, non da sondaggi diretti di rimpianto da stile decisionale. Il 45% del lato azione è la correlazione massimizzazione-rimpianto r=0,45 di Schwartz et al. (2002) e replicata in Misuraca & Teuscher (2013) e nella meta-revisione Frontiers del 2018, presentata come proxy della «quota di decisioni che questo stile produce rimpianto», piuttosto che come percentuale misurata di massimizzatori che si pentono di essere massimizzatori. Il 15% del lato inazione è costruito per inversione della stessa correlazione. Cheek & Schwartz (2016, Judgment & Decision Making 11(2), 126-146) hanno raffinato il costrutto: è il componente STRATEGIA della massimizzazione (ricerca alternativa), non il componente OBIETTIVO della massimizzazione (standard elevati), che produce il pattern negativo di benessere. Gli standard elevati da soli non sono disadattivi. Questa sfumatura conta: una persona che mantiene standard elevati ma non cerca esaustivamente alternative non è lo stesso del classico massimizzatore della scala Schwartz, e può non mostrare la stessa elevazione del rimpianto. Lo studio sulla ricerca di lavoro di Iyengar 2006 è l'evidenza causale più pulita — i massimizzatori hanno ottenuto salari del 20% più alti ma hanno riportato più affetto negativo durante tutto il processo — ma è limitato alle decisioni lavorative, non allo stile decisionale di vita in generale. La copertura dei domini è più ampia nei contesti di scelta del consumatore e di decisione lavorativa; le decisioni di relazione, genitorialità e direzione di carriera sono meno direttamente studiate. La conclusione direzionale (stile decisionale massimizzatore → più rimpianto) è robusta in due decenni e culture multiple; la magnitudine precisa del divario deve essere trattenuta con cautela.
