Both conventional wisdom and research propose that individuals should only search for a large assortment when the decision contents are important (Chaiken and Maheswaran, 1994; Sela and Berger, 2012). In other words, it is reasonable that people expend more effort on important decisions. However, maximizers (i.e., decision-makers who strive for the best possible option) seem to be the exception: they get mired in choices not only when the decision is important but also when the decision seems trivial. Regardless of whether they buy a car or choose a chocolate bar, maximizers prefer retailers that offer large assortments in order to obtain the best possible option, even though the large assortment comes with a salient cost (Chowdhury et al., 2009; Brannon and Soltwisch, 2017). For example, maximizers are more likely to drive 25 min to a grand superstore with 25 different alternatives for cleaning supplies, rather than visit the nearest grocery store that might have just four alternatives (Dar-Nimrod et al., 2009). Although previous research has predominantly focused on exploring how maximizers behave in a decision scenario (Schwartz et al., 2002; Ma and Roese, 2014), a fundamental question remains about why they prefer a larger assortment regardless of whether the decisions are important or not.

Many argue that individuals perceive the importance of a decision based on his/her own perception and interpretation (Posavac and Herzenstein, 2003). In other words, a decision (e.g., purchasing a sweater) can be perceived as important or unimportant subjectively. This raises the question of whether maximizers perceive a decision as more important than their counterparts (i.e., satisficers, decision-makers who settle for a good enough option), which could result in the choice of a store that is cost salient but that has a large assortment. In particular, whether the seemingly trivial decisions for others are indeed important for maximizers? In this study, we are particularly concerned with why maximizers prefer a larger assortment regardless of whether the decisions are important or not. In the following paragraphs, the literature background will be introduced, and hypotheses will be developed.

The term “maximizer” was first proposed by Schwartz et al. (2002) who used it to refer to those who search for large assortments and seek the best choice. In contrast, the term “satisficer” is used to refer to those who search for relatively small assortments and settle down for a good enough choice. Further research found that the decision-making styles remained stable among different contexts (Kokkoris, 2019; Moyano-Díaz and Mendoza-Llanos, 2021). Regardless of the context or importance, whether it be seeking a job, selecting a course, shopping for dish soap, or choosing an ice-cream flavor, maximizers prefer a larger assortment than satisficers (Iyengar et al., 2006; Chowdhury et al., 2009; Dar-Nimrod et al., 2009; Carrillat et al., 2011; Cheek and Schwartz, 2016; Luan and Li, 2017). However, although previous research revealed the domain-spanning preference for a large assortment, few studies have explored the mechanism behind this phenomenon.

Notably, a typical type of decision is purchasing decisions. In these decisions, the choice of assortment (i.e., the number of options in a single product category) (Broniarczyk, 2008; Goodman and Malkoc, 2012) can be conceptualized in a two-stage hierarchical fashion. In the first stage, people choose a store to visit. In the second stage, they choose a certain product in the store (Broniarczyk, 2008; Goodman and Malkoc, 2012). Thus, the assortment size that decision-makers can choose from is largely determined by the store they visit. In this study, we concentrate on the first stage—decision makers’ preference for stores with different assortment sizes. Specifically, we focus on why maximizers are more attracted to retailers that offer larger assortments.

Decision importance describes how consequential a decision is (Posavac and Herzenstein, 2003). A decision is more important when its consequences have more impact than those of other decisions (Krijnen et al., 2015). Previous research has found that decision importance is a critical factor that influences people’s preferences and decision processes. When decisions are important, people are motivated to obtain a good choice; thus, they expend more effort and search for more alternatives (Chaiken and Maheswaran, 1994; Sela and Berger, 2012). However, importance is relative and differs from person to person. The same decision can be perceived as important or not, based on the decision makers’ subjective perception and interpretation (Posavac and Herzenstein, 2003). Individuals allocate effort and desire to a certain assortment size according to their perceived importance of the decision (Payne et al., 1993). When decision-makers perceive the decisions as trivial, they allocate less effort and search for a limited number of options; otherwise, they allocate more effort and choose a larger assortment.

How do maximizers and satisficers perceive the importance of a decision differently? To the best of our knowledge, less research has provided empirical evidence for this question. However, from the fact that maximizers get stuck in decisions, especially minor ones, we infer that a seemingly trivial decision for others might indeed be perceived as important by maximizers. In other words, maximizers do not really get stuck in (what appear to be) trivial decisions for themselves because they perceive the decision as important, although others may view it differently (for example, others might perceive purchasing soap as trivial, but maximizers might perceive it as important). In this sense, it is reasonable that maximizers expend great effort and seek a large assortment because the decisions are important to their perceptions. Thus, we propose that the perceived importance of a decision is a critical factor that can explain maximizers’ preference for a large assortment size. Accordingly, we hypothesize the following:

One basic assumption of this study is that a large assortment often comes with a cost (Chernev et al., 2015). For example, large retailers have a wider scope of coverage than small ones; thus, on average, people need to expend more effort (spend more time) to visit the stores offering larger assortments. Based on H2, perceived importance drives maximizers to choose stores that have a large assortment, despite the additional effort to visit them. However, a key question to consider is what if a large assortment does not come with a salient cost. Previous research suggests that without explicit cost information, people may not be intuitively aware of the cost of a large assortment choice (for example, decision-makers do not automatically consider the cost to reach a store with a large assortment) (Iyengar and Lepper, 2000; Goodman and Malkoc, 2012). Researchers have demonstrated that when making an assortment decision, focusing on the cost (effort expended or difficulty encountered) associated with the decision process can decrease the preference for large assortments. However, without considering cost, people are generally attracted to large assortments (Goodman and Malkoc, 2012). Therefore, we propose that when a large assortment does not come with a salient cost, people generally prefer a large assortment regardless of perceived importance. Accordingly, we hypothesize the following:

Three studies were conducted to support an overall moderated mediation model (Figure 1). Study 1 tested the basic proposition that maximizers perceive a decision as more important than satisficers (H1). Study 2 confirmed that perceived importance mediates the relationship between maximizing and preference for a large assortment (H2). Studies 3a and 3b manipulated the cost salience of different choices and examined the moderating role of cost salience (H3) and the overall moderated mediation model.

Study 1 tested our basic prediction that when faced with the same decision, maximizers perceive it as more important compared to satisficers (H1). In this study, maximizers and satisficers were measured using the maximization scale (Schwartz et al., 2002). Eleven products were chosen as the decision stimuli.

Study 2 was carried out to test the mediating role of perceived importance in the relationship between maximizing and preference in the case of a large assortment. In this study, participants need to indicate their relative preference between two stores, namely, a distant store (i.e., indicating that decision-makers need to expend more effort to reach the store) with a large assortment and a nearby store with a small assortment. According to H2, we predicted that compared to satisficers, maximizers perceive the decision as more important, which subsequently leads to a preference for the large assortment. Study 2 was preregistered, and the preregistration form can be found at osf.io/yjgev.

Study 3a was carried out to demonstrate that the cost salience of assortment is a boundary condition of the observed effect. According to the results of Study 2, maximizers’ preferences for a large assortment are driven by their higher perceived importance. However, one basic assumption of Study 2 is that a large assortment often comes with a cost. Specifically, decision-makers need to expend more effort to reach stores with large assortments. In this study, we manipulated the cost salience of a large assortment and tested the hypothesis that perceived importance leads to a greater preference for a large assortment only when the large assortment comes with a salient cost (H3).

Study 3b was a replication of Study 3a, with two exceptions. First, the maximizing tendency was measured by the maximizing tendency scale, another widely used scale for measuring the maximizing tendency (Diab et al., 2008; Cheek and Goebel, 2020). Second, in the cost non-salience condition, the participants were explicitly told that the distance between their home and the two stores was the same.

In this study, we examined how maximizers and satisficers perceived the importance of decisions differently, used perceived importance as a mediator, and tested the moderating role of the cost of large assortments. Study 1 provided basic evidence regarding whether maximizers perceive decisions as more important than satisficers. Study 2 demonstrated that perceived importance mediates the relationship between maximizing and preference for large assortments. Studies 3a and 3b found that decision-makers who perceive the decision as more important have a greater preference for large assortments only when the large assortment comes with a salient cost.

This research makes significant contributions to the literature on enhancing the understanding of maximizing decision-making. First, over the past 20 years, a tendency to search for more alternatives has been treated as a key characteristic of maximizers (Schwartz et al., 2002; Dar-Nimrod et al., 2009; Cheek and Schwartz, 2016; Cheek and Goebel, 2020). Building beyond the scope of existing research, we examine how perceived importance drives maximizers’ preference for large assortments. Second, while most previous research focuses on the preference (Weaver et al., 2015; Luan and Li, 2017), behaviors (Iyengar et al., 2006; Shiner, 2015; Goldsmith et al., 2018; Olson and Ahluwalia, 2021) and post-decision subjective feelings (Ma and Roese, 2014; Hassan et al., 2019) of maximizers and satisficers, we find that the difference between maximizers and satisficers occurs at an early stage and can sufficiently influence the subsequent stages.

Apart from the theoretical contributions, this research also has significant practical implications for the development of marketing strategies. Past research provides insight to marketers on pleasing maximizers (Chowdhury et al., 2009; Kokkoris, 2018; Khare et al., 2021); however, identifying maximizers in the marketplace is not always easy. According to this study, perceived importance can be used to increase the attractiveness of large or small retailers. For example, large retailers can adopt campaigns like “every decision matters” to increase consumers’ preference for large assortments without identifying whether the consumer is a maximizer or a satisficer. In addition, as the results of Studies 3a and 3b revealed the moderating role of cost salience, retailers with large assortments should avoid reminding consumers about cost information. Retailers could also try to decrease the cost by developing e-commerce, which may maintain their attractiveness to both maximizers and satisficers.

The limitations of this study should be acknowledged. First, this study used hypothetical situations. Although hypothetical situations are widely used in the maximizing literature (e.g., Weaver et al., 2015; Mao, 2016; Kokkoris, 2019), future research should examine whether the same results can be obtained by further increasing the ecological validity, for example, in real-life situations. Second, maximizers are measured rather than manipulated in this study. Future research can manipulate maximizing tendency (e.g., priming the maximizing mindset; Ma and Roese, 2014) to build a causal relationship between maximizing and perceived importance.

This study also presents several avenues for future work. First, as mentioned in the theoretical background, the choice of assortment can be conceptualized in two stages (Broniarczyk, 2008; Goodman and Malkoc, 2012). This study concentrates on exploring store individuals’ willingness to visit but does not explore how they search and compare the options inside a store. Future research could test whether this effect can be replicated in the second stage. Second, while this study focuses on the preference for large assortments, future research can go a step further to tap into the negative consequences of large assortments. A large stream of research found that while maximizers prefer a large assortment, it also makes them feel less satisfied and more regretful about what they have chosen (Carrillat et al., 2011; Besharat et al., 2014; Kokkoris, 2018; Hassan et al., 2019). Future research could explore whether perceived importance explains maximizers’ dissatisfaction and regret. Another related question is why maximizers think their decisions are more important. This study did not provide evidence interpreting this question, but future research can try to explore it in order to deepen the understanding of the findings of this research.

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Department of Psychology, Tsinghua University. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

ML and ZL developed the study concept. ML and HL drafted the manuscript. ZL provided critical revisions. All authors contributed to the study design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation, and approved the final version of the document for submission.

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.