Decision Making and Happiness
Decision Making and Happiness
Decision Making and Happiness
Americans today choose among more options in more parts of life than has ever been
possible before. To an extent, the opportunity to choose enhances our lives. It is only
logical to think that if some choices are good, more is better; people who care about having
infinite options will benefit from them, and those who do not can always just ignore the 273
versions of cereal they have never tried. Yet recent research strongly suggests that,
psychologically, this assumption is wrong, with 5% lower percentage announcing they are
happy. Although some choices are undoubtedly better than none, more is not always better
than less.
Recent research offers insight into why many people end up unhappy rather than pleased
when their options expand. We began by making a distinction between “maximizers” (those
who always aim to make the best possible choice) and “satisficers” (those who aim for
“good enough,” whether or not better selections might be out there).
We found that the greatest maximizers are the least happy with the fruits of their efforts.
When they compare themselves with others, they get little pleasure from finding out that
they did better and substantial dissatisfaction from finding out that they did worse. They are
more prone to experiencing regret after a purchase, and if their acquisition disappoints
them, their sense of well-being takes longer to recover. They also tend to brood or ruminate
more than satisficers do.
Does it follow that maximizers are less happy in general than satisficers? We tested this by
having people fill out a variety of questionnaires known to be reliable indicators of
wellbeing. As might be expected, individuals with high maximization scores experienced
less satisfaction with life and were less happy, less optimistic and more depressed than
Several factors explain why more choice is not always better than less, especially for
maximisers. High among these are “opportunity costs.” The quality of any given option
cannot be assessed in isolation from its alternatives. One of the “costs” of making a
selection is losing the opportunities that a different option would have afforded. Thus, an
opportunity cost of vacationing on the beach in Cape Cod might be missing the fabulous
restaurants in the Napa Valley. Early Decision Making Research by Daniel Kahneman and
Amos Tversky showed that people respond much more strongly to losses than gains. If we
assume that opportunity costs reduce the overall desirability of the most preferred choice,
then the more alternatives there are, the deeper our sense of loss will be and the less
satisfaction we will derive from our ultimate decision.
The problem of opportunity costs will be better for a satisficer. The latter’s “good enough”
philosophy can survive thoughts about opportunity costs. In addition, the “good enough”
standard leads to much less searching and inspection of alternatives than the maximizer’s
“best” standard. With fewer choices under consideration, a person will have fewer
opportunity costs to subtract.
Just as people feel sorrow about the opportunities they have forgone, they may also suffer
regret about the option they settled on. My colleagues and I devised a scale to measure
proneness to feeling regret, and we found that people with high sensitivity to regret are less
happy, less satisfied with life, less optimistic and more depressed than those with low
sensitivity. Not surprisingly, we also found that people with high regret sensitivity tend to be
maximizers. Indeed, we think that worry over future regret is a major reason that individuals
become maximizers. The only way to be sure you will not regret a decision is by making
the best possible one. Unfortunately, the more options you have and the more opportunity
costs you incur, the more likely you are to experience regret.
In a classic demonstration of the power of sunk costs, people were offered season
subscriptions to a local theatre company. Some were offered the tickets at full price and
others at a discount. Then the researchers simply kept track of how often the ticket
purchasers actually attended the plays over the course of the season. Full-price payers
were more likely to show up at performances than discount payers. The reason for this, the
investigators argued, was that the full-price payers would experience more regret if they did
not use the tickets because not using the more costly tickets would constitute a bigger loss.
To increase sense of happiness, we can decide to restrict our options when the decision is
not crucial. For example, make a rule to visit no more than two stores when shopping for
clothing.
A “maximizers”
B “satisficers”
C neither “maximizers” nor “satisficers”
D both “maximizers” and “satisficers”
Questions 5-8
Do the following statements agree with the information given in Reading Passage?
In boxes 5-8 on you answer sheet, write
5..................... In today’s world, since the society is becoming wealthier, people are
happier.
8..................... Females and males acted differently in the study of choice making.
Questions 9-13
Choose the correct letter A, B, C or D.
Write the correct letter in boxes 9-13 on your answer sheet.