Abstract

There is a lack of theoretical consensus about the decision-making process and particularly regarding the maximization construct. Recently, two conceptual approaches to maximization and their respective instruments were proposed. The first defines maximization as consisting of two dimensions, goal, and strategy. The second differentiates between the two types of maximization according to the way an individual makes decisions, one is resolute and the other is fearful. Regarding the first approach, empirical goal and strategy relationships with emotional consequences on well-being and discomfort are unknown while deciding, while it is doubtful whether the distinction proposed in the second approach also applies to the adult population and in contexts different from the European one. Empirical associations are evaluated here for each approach regarding indicators of malaise and well-being through a set of hypotheses. A sample of 624 Chilean adults of both sexes (20 to 70 years old) answered eight instruments on maximization, its components, and types, and well-being and malaise. The results for both approaches show greater associations with rates of malaise than well-being. The results for the first approach show a more intense association with indices of malaise and well-being for strategy than goal. In the second approach, these associations are stronger and greater for fearful maximization than for resolute. The results contribute by increasing the understanding of the maximization construct by simultaneously showing that the increment in the strategy search for alternatives and the fearful style of maximization is directly associated with difficulty in deciding and regret.