Thirteen statements about searching widely, comparing alternatives, and aiming for the best possible choice rather than one that is good enough.
Method and research sourcesThe original scale was designed to distinguish maximizing—seeking the best possible option—from satisficing—choosing an option that meets important criteria. It samples searching, comparison, decision difficulty, and standards.
Each item is rated from 1 to 7. We report the mean to one decimal place, also ranging from 1 to 7; no items are reverse scored.
The original paper and two studies comparing or refining maximization measures are listed below.
Barry Schwartz, Andrew Ward, John Monterosso, Sonja Lyubomirsky, Katherine White, Darrin R. Lehman
Gergana Y. Nenkov, Maureen Morrin, Andrew Ward, Barry Schwartz, John Hulland
Reeshad S. Dalal, et al.
Resources are linked by decisions, perfectionism, and procrastination—not by a pathology label.
How to distinguish necessary quality from endless revision, agree on completion criteria and test a fear of mistakes through a safe task.
Understand the procrastination cycle, how self-criticism maintains it, and which small experiments can move you from pressure towards action.
Explore concern over mistakes, personal standards, parental expectations and criticism, doubts, and organization with the 35-item FMPS.
Explore Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Negative Emotionality, and Open-Mindedness with the 30-item BFI-2-S.
Not inherently. Thorough search and high standards can help, but may also cost time or increase regret depending on the decision.
There is no validated universal cutoff. Treat the score as a continuum and compare it with your actual decision outcomes.
No. Satisficing means defining important criteria and stopping when an option meets them, not ignoring consequences.
