Construct validity of maximizingSch

Construct validity of maximizing
Schwartz and colleagues (2002) have changed the perspective of the maximizing and satisficing constructs by departing from both economic models description of maximizing choice strategy (von Neumann & Morgen- stein, 1944), and Simon’s (1955; 1956) view that all decision makers would satisfice in order to adapt to their environment. Schwartz et al.’s revised perspective is that both maximizing and satisficing represent choice- behavior tendencies performed by decision makers de- pending on their standing on the maximizing construct. In addition, Schwartz et al. (2002) focused on the de- gree to which maximizing is associated with regretting decisions. They proposed that satisficers and maximizers differ in their sensitivity to regret because of differences in investment and goals in the decision making process. For maximizers, the potential for regret can increase as a consequence of two factors. The first is the potential for failing to find the best option after spending much time and effort in searching for the very best alternative. The second is the potential for failing to choose the very best option in spite of the amount of available choice in the market place. Therefore internalizing the failure as re- flecting the decision makers’ inability to optimally make a decision would yield great dissatisfaction. On the other hand, satisficers have the goal of finding a good enough alternative that has crossed the decision maker threshold, consequently, the time and effort spent by satisficers during the choice process is much more modest. Thus, satisficers are likely to experience less dissatisfaction, not only because their investment is modest, but also because their goal does not elicit unrealistic expectations.
Schwartz and colleagues performed a series of correlational studies to provide evidence for the differentiation of these two groups (maximizers and satisficers), not only with reference to the choice tendency, but also in relation to a variety of other psychological constructs. The other dimensions in the nomological net of maximizing were subjective happiness, which assesses dispositional happiness (Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999); depression (Beck & Beck, 1972); life orientation, which assesses dispo- sitional optimism (Scheier & Carver, 1985); satisfaction with life (Diener, et al., 1985); dispositional neuroticism (John, et al., 1991); self-oriented perfectionism (Hewitt & Flett, 1990; 1991); and self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965).
Findings for the validity of the MS, based on the relationships between maximizing and the aforementioned constructs in the nomological net showed that maximizers experience less satisfaction, happiness, optimism, and self-esteem than satisficers. In addition to that, maximizers were found to experience more regret, depression, and tendency towards perfectionism than satisficers. No gen- der difference was found in four out of the seven samples, and in the other three samples, males were more likely than females to be maximizers. Schwartz et al. argued to have demonstrated support for the satisficing/maximizing construct, but some of the psychometric results of the MS were not strong.
These less than optimal psychometric results have motivated researchers to re-evaluate the scale measuring the maximizing/satisficing construct. A particular re-evaluation of the MS and its psychometric properties came from Diab and colleagues (Diab et al., 2008). More specifically, Diab et al. have indicated that there are psychometric and conceptual irregularities with the MS. First, they indicated that the MS falls short of commonly accepted psychometric standards. Second, they suggested that there was not a clear connection between the theory of maximizing and satisficing and the MS. As reported by Diab et al. (2008), even though the theoretical basis for the original maximizing scale is Simon’s (1955) definition of maximizing representing the opti- mization goal, many of the items that compose the MS seem to diverge from this definition. For instance, items such as having “difficulty writing letters to friends” and “preference for ranking things like movies” do not seem to fit conceptually with an optimizing goal definition. Third, Diab and colleagues argued that the Schwartz et al. (2002) conclusion that the tendency to maximize was correlated with being less happy was a reflection of how the construct was measured, and not a reflection of the construct itself.
Diab et al. (2008) addressed the above criticisms by developing the MTS. This scale was expected to better represent and measure the constructs of maximizing and satisficing. The MTS has three items from the original MS and six new items that tap into the definition of maximization as an “optimization goal”. Furthermore, Diab et al. examined the correlation between MTS and measures of indecisiveness, avoidance, regret, neuroticism, and life (dis)satisfaction. Results showed clear differences between the original MS and the new MTS. First, they found that the MTS demonstrated substantially greater internal consistency reliability than the MS (MS α = .58; and MTS α = .80). As predicted, the MTS was largely unrelated to maladaptive personality and decisionmaking constructs. More specifically, MTS did not correlate with indecisiveness, avoidance, neuroticism, and life (dis) satisfaction, except regret. Although, the correlation between tendency to maximize and regret was lower for the MTS (r = .27) than observed for the original MS (r = .45). In sum, Diab and colleagues presented a different version of maximizing that revealed better psychometric properties, and brought to the literature new findings. However, the two most important distinctions between both scales are theoretical. First, Schwartz et al. (2002) regard the construct as multidimensional, involving multiple goals and aspects of the decision maker, and Diab et al. (2008), on the other hand, view the maximizing construct as a unidimensional measure that reflects the goal of finding the very best. Second, the findings for the validity of the MS suggested that the construct of maximizing is assocIated

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

Validitas memaksimalkanSchwartz and colleagues (2002) have changed the perspective of the maximizing and satisficing constructs by departing from both economic models description of maximizing choice strategy (von Neumann & Morgen- stein, 1944), and Simon’s (1955; 1956) view that all decision makers would satisfice in order to adapt to their environment. Schwartz et al.’s revised perspective is that both maximizing and satisficing represent choice- behavior tendencies performed by decision makers de- pending on their standing on the maximizing construct. In addition, Schwartz et al. (2002) focused on the de- gree to which maximizing is associated with regretting decisions. They proposed that satisficers and maximizers differ in their sensitivity to regret because of differences in investment and goals in the decision making process. For maximizers, the potential for regret can increase as a consequence of two factors. The first is the potential for failing to find the best option after spending much time and effort in searching for the very best alternative. The second is the potential for failing to choose the very best option in spite of the amount of available choice in the market place. Therefore internalizing the failure as re- flecting the decision makers’ inability to optimally make a decision would yield great dissatisfaction. On the other hand, satisficers have the goal of finding a good enough alternative that has crossed the decision maker threshold, consequently, the time and effort spent by satisficers during the choice process is much more modest. Thus, satisficers are likely to experience less dissatisfaction, not only because their investment is modest, but also because their goal does not elicit unrealistic expectations.Schwartz and colleagues performed a series of correlational studies to provide evidence for the differentiation of these two groups (maximizers and satisficers), not only with reference to the choice tendency, but also in relation to a variety of other psychological constructs. The other dimensions in the nomological net of maximizing were subjective happiness, which assesses dispositional happiness (Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999); depression (Beck & Beck, 1972); life orientation, which assesses dispo- sitional optimism (Scheier & Carver, 1985); satisfaction with life (Diener, et al., 1985); dispositional neuroticism (John, et al., 1991); self-oriented perfectionism (Hewitt & Flett, 1990; 1991); and self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965).Findings for the validity of the MS, based on the relationships between maximizing and the aforementioned constructs in the nomological net showed that maximizers experience less satisfaction, happiness, optimism, and self-esteem than satisficers. In addition to that, maximizers were found to experience more regret, depression, and tendency towards perfectionism than satisficers. No gen- der difference was found in four out of the seven samples, and in the other three samples, males were more likely than females to be maximizers. Schwartz et al. argued to have demonstrated support for the satisficing/maximizing construct, but some of the psychometric results of the MS were not strong.These less than optimal psychometric results have motivated researchers to re-evaluate the scale measuring the maximizing/satisficing construct. A particular re-evaluation of the MS and its psychometric properties came from Diab and colleagues (Diab et al., 2008). More specifically, Diab et al. have indicated that there are psychometric and conceptual irregularities with the MS. First, they indicated that the MS falls short of commonly accepted psychometric standards. Second, they suggested that there was not a clear connection between the theory of maximizing and satisficing and the MS. As reported by Diab et al. (2008), even though the theoretical basis for the original maximizing scale is Simon’s (1955) definition of maximizing representing the opti- mization goal, many of the items that compose the MS seem to diverge from this definition. For instance, items such as having “difficulty writing letters to friends” and “preference for ranking things like movies” do not seem to fit conceptually with an optimizing goal definition. Third, Diab and colleagues argued that the Schwartz et al. (2002) conclusion that the tendency to maximize was correlated with being less happy was a reflection of how the construct was measured, and not a reflection of the construct itself.Diab et al. (2008) addressed the above criticisms by developing the MTS. This scale was expected to better represent and measure the constructs of maximizing and satisficing. The MTS has three items from the original MS and six new items that tap into the definition of maximization as an “optimization goal”. Furthermore, Diab et al. examined the correlation between MTS and measures of indecisiveness, avoidance, regret, neuroticism, and life (dis)satisfaction. Results showed clear differences between the original MS and the new MTS. First, they found that the MTS demonstrated substantially greater internal consistency reliability than the MS (MS α = .58; and MTS α = .80). As predicted, the MTS was largely unrelated to maladaptive personality and decisionmaking constructs. More specifically, MTS did not correlate with indecisiveness, avoidance, neuroticism, and life (dis) satisfaction, except regret. Although, the correlation between tendency to maximize and regret was lower for the MTS (r = .27) than observed for the original MS (r = .45). In sum, Diab and colleagues presented a different version of maximizing that revealed better psychometric properties, and brought to the literature new findings. However, the two most important distinctions between both scales are theoretical. First, Schwartz et al. (2002) regard the construct as multidimensional, involving multiple goals and aspects of the decision maker, and Diab et al. (2008), on the other hand, view the maximizing construct as a unidimensional measure that reflects the goal of finding the very best. Second, the findings for the validity of the MS suggested that the construct of maximizing is assocIated

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 2:

Validitas konstruk memaksimalkan
Schwartz dan rekan (2002) telah mengubah perspektif memaksimalkan dan satisficing konstruksi oleh berangkat dari kedua model ekonomi deskripsi memaksimalkan strategi pilihan (von Neumann & Morgen- stein, 1944), dan Simon (1955; 1956) lihat bahwa semua pengambil keputusan akan satisfice untuk beradaptasi dengan lingkungan mereka. Perspektif direvisi Schwartz et al. Adalah bahwa kedua memaksimalkan dan satisficing mewakili kecenderungan perilaku pilihan-dilakukan oleh pengambil keputusan de- tertunda pada posisi mereka di konstruk memaksimalkan. Selain itu, Schwartz et al. (2002) difokuskan pada gree de- yang memaksimalkan dikaitkan dengan keputusan menyesali. Mereka mengusulkan agar satisficers dan maximizers berbeda dalam sensitivitas mereka menyesal karena perbedaan dalam investasi dan tujuan dalam proses pengambilan keputusan. Untuk maximizers, potensi penyesalan dapat meningkatkan sebagai konsekuensi dari dua faktor. Yang pertama adalah potensi gagal untuk menemukan pilihan terbaik setelah menghabiskan banyak waktu dan usaha dalam mencari alternatif terbaik. Yang kedua adalah potensi gagal untuk memilih pilihan terbaik terlepas dari jumlah pilihan yang tersedia di pasar. Oleh karena itu internalisasi kegagalan sebagai re- flecting ketidakmampuan pengambil keputusan 'untuk secara optimal membuat keputusan akan menghasilkan ketidakpuasan besar. Di sisi lain, satisficers memiliki tujuan menemukan alternatif yang cukup baik yang telah melewati ambang pengambil keputusan, akibatnya, waktu dan usaha yang dihabiskan oleh satisficers selama proses pilihan jauh lebih sederhana. Dengan demikian, satisficers cenderung mengalami kurang ketidakpuasan, bukan hanya karena investasi mereka sederhana, tetapi juga karena tujuan mereka tidak menimbulkan harapan yang tidak realistis.
Schwartz dan rekannya melakukan serangkaian studi korelasional untuk memberikan bukti untuk diferensiasi kedua kelompok ini (maximizers dan satisficers), tidak hanya dengan mengacu pada kecenderungan pilihan, tetapi juga dalam kaitannya dengan berbagai konstruksi psikologis lainnya. Dimensi lain dalam jaring nomological memaksimalkan kebahagiaan yang subjektif, yang menilai kebahagiaan disposisional (Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999); depresi (Beck & Beck, 1972); orientasi hidup, yang menilai optimisme trasi dispo- (Scheier & Carver, 1985); (. Diener, et al, 1985) kepuasan dengan kehidupan; neurotisme disposisional (John, et al, 1991.); kesempurnaan berorientasi diri (Hewitt & Flett, 1990; 1991); dan harga diri (Rosenberg, 1965).
Temuan untuk validitas MS, berdasarkan pada hubungan antara memaksimalkan dan konstruksi tersebut dalam jaring nomological menunjukkan bahwa maximizers mengalami kurang kepuasan, kebahagiaan, optimisme, dan harga diri dari satisficers. Selain itu, maximizers ditemukan mengalami lebih penyesalan, depresi, dan kecenderungan perfeksionis dari satisficers. Tidak ada gen- der perbedaan ditemukan di empat dari tujuh sampel, dan dalam tiga sampel lainnya, laki-laki lebih mungkin dibandingkan perempuan untuk menjadi maximizers. Schwartz et al. didalilkan telah menunjukkan dukungan untuk satisficing yang / memaksimalkan membangun, tetapi beberapa hasil psikometri dari MS tidak kuat.
Ini kurang dari hasil psikometri optimal telah memotivasi peneliti untuk mengevaluasi kembali skala mengukur konstruk memaksimalkan / satisficing. Sebuah evaluasi ulang tertentu dari MS dan sifat psikometri yang berasal dari Diab dan rekan (Diab et al., 2008). Lebih khusus, Diab et al. telah menunjukkan bahwa ada penyimpangan psikometri dan konseptual dengan MS. Pertama, mereka menunjukkan bahwa MS jatuh pendek dari standar psikometri yang biasa diterima. Kedua, mereka menyarankan bahwa tidak ada hubungan yang jelas antara teori memaksimalkan dan satisficing dan MS. Seperti dilansir Diab et al. (2008), meskipun dasar teoritis untuk skala memaksimalkan asli (1955) definisi Simon memaksimalkan mewakili tujuan mization optimates, banyak item yang membentuk MS tampaknya menyimpang dari definisi ini. Misalnya, barang-barang seperti memiliki "kesulitan menulis surat kepada teman-teman" dan "preferensi untuk hal-hal seperti film Peringkat" tampaknya tidak cocok konseptual dengan definisi tujuan mengoptimalkan. Ketiga, Diab dan rekannya berpendapat bahwa Schwartz et al. (2002) menyimpulkan bahwa kecenderungan untuk memaksimalkan berkorelasi dengan menjadi kurang bahagia adalah refleksi dari bagaimana konstruk diukur, dan bukan merupakan cerminan dari konstruk itu sendiri.
Diab et al. (2008) membahas kritik atas dengan mengembangkan MTS. Skala ini diharapkan untuk lebih mewakili dan mengukur konstruksi memaksimalkan dan satisficing. MTS memiliki tiga item dari aslinya MS dan enam item baru yang memasuki definisi maksimalisasi sebagai "optimasi tujuan". Selanjutnya, Diab et al. meneliti korelasi antara MTS dan langkah-langkah dari keraguan, penghindaran, penyesalan, neurotisisme, dan kehidupan (dis) kepuasan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan perbedaan yang jelas antara MS asli dan MTS baru. Pertama, mereka menemukan bahwa MTS menunjukkan reliabilitas konsistensi internal secara substansial lebih besar dari MS (MS α = 0,58; dan MTS α = 0,80). Seperti yang diperkirakan, MTS sebagian besar tidak berhubungan dengan maladaptif kepribadian dan pengambilan keputusan konstruksi. Lebih khusus, MTS tidak berkorelasi dengan ketidaktegasan, menghindari, neurotisisme, dan kehidupan (dis) kepuasan, kecuali penyesalan. Meskipun, korelasi antara kecenderungan untuk memaksimalkan dan menyesal adalah lebih rendah untuk MTS (r = 0,27) dibandingkan diamati untuk asli MS (r = 0,45). Singkatnya, Diab dan rekan disajikan versi yang berbeda dari memaksimalkan yang mengungkapkan sifat psikometrik yang lebih baik, dan dibawa ke literatur temuan baru. Namun, dua perbedaan paling penting antara kedua skala yang teoritis. Pertama, Schwartz et al. (2002) menganggap konstruk sebagai multidimensional, yang melibatkan beberapa tujuan dan aspek pembuat keputusan, dan Diab et al. (2008), di sisi lain, melihat memaksimalkan yang membangun sebagai ukuran unidimensional yang mencerminkan tujuan menemukan yang terbaik. Kedua, temuan untuk validitas MS menyarankan bahwa konstruk memaksimalkan dikaitkan