The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less¶
Schwartz, B. (2004). The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less: Why More Is Less.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Nirvana Fallacy
- And in personal decision-making, a partner, job, or city is refused because it is not ideal, when the real choice set is bounded.
This sourceDistinguishes maximizing (accepting only the best possible option) from satisficing (choosing what is good enough), and documents the dissatisfaction and paralysis of maximizers — supporting the personal-decision case of refusing a bounded real option for falling short of an ideal.
- And in personal decision-making, a partner, job, or city is refused because it is not ideal, when the real choice set is bounded.
- Satisficing
- T2 — Maximizer versus satisficer dispositions. Individual differences matter: some people habitually satisfice (accept reasonably good options quickly, moving on to other concerns) while others habitually maximize (continue searching for the best possible option, often at high cognitive and emotional cost),
This sourceEcco/HarperCollins. Popular treatment of maximizer-satisficer dispositions and choice overload. Extends the psychological research into broader implications for consumer culture and decision-making in modern society.*
- T2 — Maximizer versus satisficer dispositions. Individual differences matter: some people habitually satisfice (accept reasonably good options quickly, moving on to other concerns) while others habitually maximize (continue searching for the best possible option, often at high cognitive and emotional cost),
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Not recorded. Neither this nor any other of the 2 citations of this work carries a recorded support check.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:a63bd8414939 · see in the full table