Satisfiers and Maximizers, Which One Should We Be

by Mendel Adelman

Some questions are destructive. They aren’t worth asking. Just entertaining them, giving them a foothold in the recesses of your brain can let them fester. One of those questions is: Is there anything better out there?

What would you rather: Go to an ice cream shop with 36 flavors, or one with 5? What would you rather: check out 5 cars before buying, or check out 20?

You might think that the more options you have, the better. Maybe your favorite flavor is one of the 36, not the 5. Maybe the best car for you is among the 20, not the 5. And you might even be right.

Society is roughly divided into two groups: satisfiers and maximizers. Satisfiers are people who accept the first option that fits what they were looking for. Buying a house? They’ll take the first one that is within their price range and looks good enough. Choosing a car? If they like it, they’ll take it.

Maximizers, on the other hand, aren’t looking for a good deal. They are looking for the best deal. They are looking to find the best house or car on the market. They are selective. They are deliberate. They don’t give up easily. And they are wildly successful. When Professor Barry Schwartz studied this phenomenon, he found that maximizers made a lot more per year. They made, on average, $7,500 more than satisfiers. And that was in 2004 dollars.

But there was one drawback. Those better results came at a cost. They leeched away happiness.

Maximizers made more, but they were less happy with their job. Their car was objectively better, but they liked it less. Their happiness rotted away in the face of a persistent question: “Is there something better out there?”

They wanted the best deal, but how could they know what the best deal is? Whatever they chose felt less than ideal, even if it was significantly better than what the satisfiers procured.

This pattern exists in every part of life, from the important decisions, down to the insignificant ones. Professor Sheena Iyengar set up two displays in a store. Both were for jam. One held 5 types of jam, while the other held 50. Most people were consistently drawn to the larger display, with its glittering array of options. But very few people who went there walked away with a jar. The smaller display, with only a few types, drew less traffic. But those who did come were much more likely to find a jam they liked.

The amount of options in the large display was exhausting. It forced people to choose, forced them to find the “best” option. For many, that responsibility was overwhelming. More than 90% of them walked away jamless. But even those who did choose a jam liked it less. They wondered if they might have gotten the wrong one.

Turns out, choices are only good up to a point. If there are too few choices, we feel constrained. We are hardwired to want more options. That is why the large display was more alluring to customers. But there is a tipping point where more options takes away our happiness. Too few puts us in a constricting harness. Too many puts us in freefall.

So, we all have a choice in life. We can make a little bit more, get a slightly better jar of jam. Or we could be happier.

The Mishnah’s maxim “who is wealthy? Whomever is happy with what they have” is not limited to what we already have. It extends also to the choices we can make.

We should be satisfiers. Don’t ask if there is something better. We should be happy with the first good option.