So far satisficing has been a story about capability — you can’t optimise, so you set a bar. This lesson is about something stranger and more human: even when you could search more, doing so can make you worse off — not just in time, but in happiness. Psychologist Barry Schwartz turned Simon’s distinction into a personality dimension. Maximisers try to make the best possible choice; satisficers take the first option that clears their bar. The research finding is the twist that gives this course its edge: maximisers get outcomes that are slightly better on paper and feel substantially worse. Chasing the best is, for most decisions, a bad deal.
Before you read — take a guess
Studies comparing 'maximisers' (who search for the best) with 'satisficers' (who stop at good enough) find which pattern?
Two decision styles
The distinction is about the rule you run, not the outcome you get.
- A maximiser treats every choice as a search for the best: they keep looking, compare obsessively, revisit decisions, and worry that a superior option is still out there. Their aspiration is effectively “the top of the distribution.”
- A satisficer runs an aspiration level: they decide what’s good enough, take the first option that clears it, and move on. Their aspiration is “clearly good,” not “provably best.”
Nobody is purely one or the other, and the same person maximises some domains (say, choosing a laptop) and satisfices others (say, choosing socks). But as a trait, higher maximising tendency predicts a distinct and well-replicated cluster of feelings — and most of them are unpleasant.
It's the rule, not the result
Two people can buy the identical camera. The satisficer, who wanted “a solid camera under £600” and found one, feels great. The maximiser, who wanted “the best camera under £600,” buys the same one and immediately reads three more reviews, spots a rival model, and feels a pang. Same object, opposite experience — because the maximiser’s rule guarantees an open question (“could I have done better?”) that the satisficer’s rule closes.
Why maximising hurts: regret and counterfactuals
Why does searching for the best feel so bad? Three mechanisms, all downstream of the maximiser’s rule.
1. Counterfactuals stay open. To know you got the best, you’d have to have seen everything — which you never can. So the maximiser lives with a permanent open question: maybe something better was out there. The satisficer’s bar closes that question (“it cleared good enough; done”). An unclosed question is a low-grade, constant source of doubt.
2. Regret scales with options considered. The more alternatives you weighed, the more vivid the “what ifs” when your choice disappoints. Having considered thirty flats, you can picture thirty ways it could have gone better. The satisficer who saw four has four ghosts; the maximiser who saw thirty is haunted.
3. Rising expectations. Working hard to optimise inflates what you feel entitled to. If you spent a month finding “the best,” a merely-good result feels like a failure — the effort raised the bar it’s judged against. Satisficers, expecting “good enough,” are more often pleasantly surprised.
Add the sheer opportunity cost of the search itself — the maximiser’s month of comparison is a month not lived — and the ledger tilts hard. A tiny gain in the object, paid for with time, doubt, regret, and inflated expectations. For most decisions, that’s a terrible trade.
Satisficing lab
The maximiser's tiny edge — and its enormous cost
Options arrive one at a time with a hidden quality (1–100). A satisficer sets an aspiration level and grabs the first option that clears it; a maximiser inspects everything to find the true best. Drag the aspiration, then raise the cost of each look and watch which strategy wins.
- Accepted quality
- 86
- Looks used
- 3.3
- Regret
- 11
- Net value
- 76
| Quality | Looks | Net value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Satisficer | 86 | 3.3 | 76 |
| Maximiser | 97 | 30 | 7 |
With 30 options and an aspiration of 72, the satisficer accepts quality 86 after just 3.3 looks for a net value of 76. The best aspiration here is about 78. The maximiser finds the true best but pays for every look — its net value is only 7.
Watch one search
Read the comparison table in the lab: the maximiser’s quality is highest and their regret (in the value sense of “distance from the best”) is zero — that’s the sliver they win. But their looks equal the entire field, and their net value sinks below the satisficer’s peak once each look costs something. Now add the psychological regret the lab can’t draw — the open counterfactuals, the inflated expectations — and the maximiser’s “win” looks even worse.
The paradox of choice
Schwartz’s broader thesis, the paradox of choice, sharpens the point at the level of whole environments: more options can make people worse off. Beyond a certain point, adding choices raises the cost of deciding, inflates expectations, and multiplies the counterfactuals — so people choose worse, or freeze and don’t choose at all, and enjoy what they pick less.
The famous illustration is the jam study (Iyengar & Lepper): a supermarket display of 24 jams drew more passers-by than one of 6 jams, but shoppers were ten times more likely to actually buy from the display of 6. The bigger assortment attracted attention and then paralysed it. More options, fewer decisions, less satisfaction. (The effect is real but context-dependent — later work finds choice overload appears mainly when options are complex, stakes feel high, or the chooser has no clear preference; a jam expert isn’t overwhelmed by 24 jams.)
More choice is not a free good
Classical theory says extra options can only help — you can always ignore the ones you don’t want. Bounded rationality says otherwise: each option you consider costs attention, raises your expectations, and adds a counterfactual to regret later. Past a point, a bigger menu makes deciding harder and the result less satisfying. The design lesson (and the personal one) is to curate — cut the option set to a sane size before you choose.
In the jam study, a display of 24 jams drew more interest but a display of 6 jams produced far more purchases. What does this illustrate?
What to do about it
The practical upshot isn’t “never care about outcomes.” It’s to satisfice deliberately on the many decisions that don’t merit maximising, and to shrink the option set when you can.
- Adopt a good-enough rule for reversible, low-stakes choices — and honour it. Decide the bar, take the first clearer, and don’t reopen the question.
- Curate before you choose. Cut the flats to a shortlist of five, the cameras to three. Fewer options considered means less regret and faster decisions.
- Make some decisions once. “I always order the house special” or “I buy the mid-tier option” converts a repeated search into a settled policy — the ultimate satisficing move.
- Reserve maximising for the rare decisions where it genuinely pays (Lesson 5 makes this precise). Being a satisficer by default and a maximiser by exception is the mature setting.
Sort each statement into whether it describes a MAXIMISER or a SATISFICER.
Place each item in the right group.
- Closes the 'could I have done better?' question and moves on
- Reports more regret and second-guessing after deciding
- Is more paralysed by a display of 24 options than 6
- Lands marginally better objective outcomes but feels worse about them
- Sets a 'good enough' bar and takes the first option that clears it
- Keeps searching for the best option even after finding a good one
- Decides faster and stays more content with the choice
What's the strongest practical takeaway from the maximiser–satisficer research?
The one thing to remember
Maximisers chase the best; satisficers take the first option that clears their bar. The research is decisive: maximisers get marginally better outcomes and feel substantially worse — more regret, more open counterfactuals, inflated expectations, and the paradox of choice on top, where too many options paralyse and dissatisfy. The move isn’t to stop caring; it’s to satisfice by default, curate your options, close the “could I have done better?” question — and reserve maximising for the rare decisions that earn it. Which ones those are is Lesson 5.