If it has lots of bells and whistles, it must be the best: how maximizers and satisficers evaluate feature-rich versus feature-poor products

Past studies have largely focused on how maximizers versus satisficers choose among multiple products within a given consideration set. By contrast, our research focuses on how and why maximizers evaluate an individual product based on a salient characteristic—the number of features that it has. Across two studies, we find that maximizers evaluate products more favorably than satisficers when they have many features (i.e., they are “feature-rich”), but not when they have few features (i.e., they are “feature-poor”). Further, we outline the process underlying this effect: Maximizers are more likely than satisficers to perceive feature-rich (vs. feature-poor) products as a means of signaling status to others. We additionally identify a boundary condition supporting this proposed theoretical process. Specifically, we demonstrate that when maximizers no longer perceive feature-rich products as status signals, they do not evaluate them more favorably than satisficers.

[1]  Adam D. Galinsky,et al.  Super Size Me: Product Size as a Signal of Status , 2012 .

[2]  B. Schwartz The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less , 2004 .

[3]  Wen Mao,et al.  When one desires too much of a good thing: The compromise effect under maximizing tendencies , 2016 .

[4]  Alice M. Tybout,et al.  The Moderating Role of Prior Knowledge in Schema-Based Product Evaluation , 1996 .

[5]  Renaud Legoux,et al.  When the decision ball keeps rolling: An investigation of the Sisyphus effect among maximizing consumers , 2011 .

[6]  D. Thompson,et al.  The Social Utility of Feature Creep , 2011 .

[7]  T. G. Chowdhury,et al.  The time-harried shopper: Exploring the differences between maximizers and satisficers , 2009 .

[8]  Norbert Schwarz,et al.  The role of social comparison for maximizers and satisficers: Wanting the best or wanting to be the best? , 2015 .

[9]  John G. Lynch,et al.  Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths about Mediation Analysis , 2010 .

[10]  F. Gino,et al.  The red sneakers effect: Inferring status and competence from signals of nonconformity. , 2014 .

[11]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences , 1979 .

[12]  Evan Polman,et al.  Why are maximizers less happy than satisficers? Because they maximize positive and negative outcomes , 2010 .

[13]  Caglar Irmak,et al.  Having versus Consuming: Failure to Estimate Usage Frequency Makes Consumers Prefer Multifeature Products , 2013 .

[14]  Linda Lai,et al.  Maximizing without difficulty: A modified maximizing scale and its correlates , 2010, Judgment and Decision Making.

[15]  B. Schwartz,et al.  Maximizing versus satisficing: happiness is a matter of choice , 2002 .

[16]  A. Hayes Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach , 2013 .

[17]  Scott Highhouse,et al.  Are maximizers really unhappy? The measurement of maximizing tendency , 2008, Judgment and Decision Making.

[18]  M. Zanna,et al.  Establishing a causal chain: why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. , 2005, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[19]  François A. Carrillat,et al.  Are maximizers blind to the future? When today’s best does not make for a better tomorrow , 2014 .

[20]  B. Schwartz,et al.  Doing Better but Feeling Worse , 2006, Psychological science.

[21]  Roland T. Rust,et al.  Feature Fatigue: When Product Capabilities Become Too Much of a Good Thing , 2005 .

[22]  Andrew M. Parker,et al.  Maximizers versus satisficers: Decision-making styles, competence, and outcomes , 2007, Judgment and Decision Making.

[23]  S. Levy Stalking the Amphisbaena , 1996 .