Satisfice instead of maximize
Choose the option that meets your criteria rather than searching for the theoretically best one.
Key takeaways
- What it is: Choose the option that meets your criteria rather than searching for the theoretically best one.
- Why it works: Maximizers (people who seek the best possible option) report lower satisfaction than satisficers (people who choose the first option that meets a defined threshold), even when maximizers objectively get better outcomes. The mechanism is counterfactual thinking: maximizers are more aware of alternatives not chosen, which reduces satisfaction with what was chosen. Satisficing reduces this by settling the decision once criteria are met, allowing attention to shift to enjoying what is rather than comparing to what could be.
- Evidence: Backed by observational / correlational evidence.
- Avoid: Applying satisficing to every decision including those where maximizing is warranted (major health decisions, irreversible life choices), treating it as a universal strategy rather than a default for low-to-moderate-stakes choices.
Why it works
Maximizers (people who seek the best possible option) report lower satisfaction than satisficers (people who choose the first option that meets a defined threshold), even when maximizers objectively get better outcomes. The mechanism is counterfactual thinking: maximizers are more aware of alternatives not chosen, which reduces satisfaction with what was chosen. Satisficing reduces this by settling the decision once criteria are met, allowing attention to shift to enjoying what is rather than comparing to what could be.
How to do it
- 1Before a decision, define what "good enough" looks like — the specific criteria that make an option satisfactory.
- 2Choose the first option that meets those criteria and commit to the choice.
- 3Avoid comparing to alternatives after committing — what-if comparisons are the mechanism of dissatisfaction.
- 4Reserve maximizing effort for decisions where the stakes genuinely warrant it.
What the evidence says
ObservationalBarry Schwartz and colleagues found maximizers report lower satisfaction, more regret, and more depression than satisficers, even controlling for the quality of the outcomes they achieve.
Honest caveat: Correlational evidence; the causal direction is unclear (lower trait satisfaction may drive maximizing behavior rather than vice versa). Satisficing is genuinely weaker for high-stakes, irreversible decisions where careful search has clear value.
- — Schwartz et al. (2002), maximizing versus satisficing: happiness is a matter of choice, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Common mistake
Applying satisficing to every decision including those where maximizing is warranted (major health decisions, irreversible life choices), treating it as a universal strategy rather than a default for low-to-moderate-stakes choices.
IX Coach helps you define your "good enough" criteria before entering a choice context and reinforces commitment after you’ve chosen — cutting off the counterfactual comparisons that erode satisfaction.
Practice this with IX Coach →