The Wellbeing Implications of Maximizing: A Conceptual Framework and Meta-Analysis

Belli, A; Carrillat, F; Zlatevska, N; Cowley, E

The Wellbeing Implications of Maximizing: A Conceptual Framework and Meta-Analysis

Belli, A

Carrillat, F

Zlatevska, N

Cowley, E

Permalink

Publisher:: Wiley
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2022, 32, (4), pp. 573-596
Issue Date:: 2022-09-20

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	J Consum Psychol - 2022 - Belli - The wellbeing implications of maximizing A conceptual framework and meta‐analysis.pdf	Published version	841.15 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Belli, A https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5425-9294
dc.contributor.author	Carrillat, F https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6188-1372
dc.contributor.author	Zlatevska, N https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0936-1529
dc.contributor.author	Cowley, E
dc.date.accessioned	2023-05-08T23:48:20Z
dc.date.available	2021-12-19
dc.date.available	2023-05-08T23:48:20Z
dc.date.issued	2022-09-20
dc.identifier.citation	Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2022, 32, (4), pp. 573-596
dc.identifier.issn	1057-7408
dc.identifier.issn	1532-7663
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/170284
dc.description.abstract	Decision-making literature establishes that maximizers, who always strive for the best option, paradoxically experience lower wellbeing. The current study aims to discover the conditions that attenuate or exacerbate the detrimental effect of maximization on wellbeing by using a large-scale meta-analysis based on 683 effect sizes from 108 papers, spanning 47,245 unique respondents. We develop a conceptual framework for the literature and classify potential moderators of the maximization-wellbeing relationship along two dimensions: (i) whether they enable the decision-maker to focus on the choice process or the choice outcome, and (ii) the extent to which they contribute to choice complexity, expecting that process (vs. outcome) focus and less complex choices can assuage maximizers’ wellbeing deficit. Our meta-analysis supports our expectations for all the choice focus moderators, but not for all the choice complexity moderators. Alongside theoretical and practical implications, we offer a framework to guide future research that should uncover when choice complexity moderators most accurately explain the wellbeing of maximizers.
dc.language	English
dc.publisher	Wiley
dc.relation.ispartof	Journal of Consumer Psychology
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1002/jcpy.1283
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subject	1505 Marketing, 1701 Psychology
dc.subject.classification	Marketing
dc.title	The Wellbeing Implications of Maximizing: A Conceptual Framework and Meta-Analysis
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	32
utslib.for	1505 Marketing
utslib.for	1701 Psychology
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business/Marketing Discipline
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access	*
pubs.consider-herdc	true
dc.date.updated	2023-05-08T23:48:19Z
pubs.issue	4
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	32
utslib.citation.issue	4

Abstract:

Decision-making literature establishes that maximizers, who always strive for the best option, paradoxically experience lower wellbeing. The current study aims to discover the conditions that attenuate or exacerbate the detrimental effect of maximization on wellbeing by using a large-scale meta-analysis based on 683 effect sizes from 108 papers, spanning 47,245 unique respondents. We develop a conceptual framework for the literature and classify potential moderators of the maximization-wellbeing relationship along two dimensions: (i) whether they enable the decision-maker to focus on the choice process or the choice outcome, and (ii) the extent to which they contribute to choice complexity, expecting that process (vs. outcome) focus and less complex choices can assuage maximizers’ wellbeing deficit. Our meta-analysis supports our expectations for all the choice focus moderators, but not for all the choice complexity moderators. Alongside theoretical and practical implications, we offer a framework to guide future research that should uncover when choice complexity moderators most accurately explain the wellbeing of maximizers.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/170284