We recently booked a trip this summer to a country we’ve never visited before, and I felt overwhelmed by all the choices. I decided to work with a local travel agent who came highly recommended, and it was such a great experience, saving us hours and hours of research time and money. More importantly, we were spared the difficult task of having to make choices across a multitude of possible cities, hotels, tours, and flights. When our travel agent sent a proposed itinerary, we read through it, thought it sounded fine, and told her to go ahead and book it. Easy peasy, right? But maybe some of you reading this are not comfortable with this approach; how do I know I really made the best possible choices? If that sounds like you, you may be a maximizer.

The concept of maximizers and satisficers is often attributed to psychologist Barry Schwartz’s 2004 book The Paradox of Choice, where he argues that an abundance of choice can actually lead to anxiety and psychological stress. The term satisficer, a combination of satisfy and suffice, was actually coined by political scientist Herman A. Simon, who did research in decision-making and won a Nobel Prize in 1978. Satisficers make decisions by choosing what is good enough to satisfy minimum requirements, while maximizers seek the best possible outcome by considering all possible alternatives. I will note up front that one approach is not inherently different than the other, but there are trade-offs to each approach.

Since the goal is to make the best possible choice, the maximizing approach can result in more benefits and minimal costs or risks. Maximizers explore all available options and evaluate them based on various criteria. However, taking such a thorough approach takes planning and preparation and, ultimately, more time and effort. And because of the perfectionist tendency, it can lead to greater potential for delay, regret at the final decision, and revisiting of decisions.

On the other hand, satisficing saves time and effort because once an acceptable option is found, you are done. This approach is usually more relaxed and efficient, so there is less stress and anxiety. Satisficers tend to be more content and confident with their decisions and less likely to second-guess themselves. However, there is also potential for making suboptimal decisions.

So which approach is best for you? You may have a preference for one or the other based on your personality and values, but keep in mind that it really depends on the context. For example, if a decision is irreversible, it may be worth taking a maximizer approach. However, if the stakes are low or the decision is easily reversible, you can save yourself both time and angst by being a satisficer. Some examples of this are creating a capsule wardrobe or wearing a uniform, shopping at Trader Joe’s instead of a large supermarket, or leaving your travel planning to an agent (though in a way that is outsourcing the maximization to an expert). The important thing is to be conscious of what your natural preference is, and also to intentionally choose your approach based on the nature of the decision to be made.