Satisfice instead of maximize

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.

How to do it

1. Before a decision, define what "good enough" looks like — the specific criteria that make an option satisfactory.
2. Choose the first option that meets those criteria and commit to the choice.
3. Avoid comparing to alternatives after committing — what-if comparisons are the mechanism of dissatisfaction.
4. Reserve maximizing effort for decisions where the stakes genuinely warrant it.

Evidence

Barry 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. (observational)

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.

Sources

• 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.