See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/355411639

Development of a Scale to Measure Decision-Making Tendency in Human-

Product Interactions

Conference Paper · December 2021

CITATION READS

1 1,651

3 authors:

Youngsoo Shin Chajoong Kim

Cornell University Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology (UNIST)
20 PUBLICATIONS   135 CITATIONS    44 PUBLICATIONS   177 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jay Yoon
Cornell University
45 PUBLICATIONS   287 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Yonsei University Future-leading Research View project

Personalized UX Design (Cornell) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Youngsoo Shin on 06 December 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Development of a Scale to Measure Decision-Making
Tendency in Human-Product Interactions
Shin, Youngsooa; Kim, Chajoongb; Yoon, JungKyoon*a
aDepartment of Design and Environmental Analysis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States
bDepartment of Design, UNIST, Ulsan, South Korea
* The corresponding author: Yoon, JungKyoon (jy846@cornell.edu)

Design consideration for tailoring users’ decision-making experiences is viewed as an important factor
towards more highly user-centred and personalized human-product interactions (HPIs). In this paper,
we aim to establish a foundation for a new design approach by presenting the set-up of the
development and validation of a new measurement scale on users’ decision-making tendency,
maximizing and satisfying. From behavioural science, we extend the recent discussion on these
individual differences between maximizers who tend to expect the greatest amount of benefit from
every daily opportunity and satisfiers who tend to feel happy with their choices as long as they think
they are good enough. We developed an initial pool of the decision-making tendency measurements
based on previous literature and a focus group interview. To modify the initial pool of measurements,
we conducted (1) random probes with three researchers and (2) standard scaling procedures with
eight external judges. Furthermore, we tested the reliability of the scale by calculating Cronbach
alpha and test-retest reliability. We expect that these findings provide a grounding for future design
research and practices in terms of implementing users’ decision-making tendency for personalized
HPIs.

Keywords: decision-making; maximization tendency; user experience; scale development; critical

design mode

1 Introduction
In this paper, we see the value in extending the recent discussion on individuals’ decision-making
tendency, maximizing and satisfying, from the behavioural science field (Cheeck & Schwartz 2016;
Kamiya, Zeelenberg & da Costa Hernandez 2021; Misuraca & Fasolo 2018). Within this perspective,
there are two types of daily decision-makers, maximizers who tend to extract the greatest amount of
benefit from every daily opportunity and satisfiers who tend to feel happy with their choices as long
as they think they are good enough (Cheeck & Schwartz 2016). Although this individual difference

Appropriate copyright/license statement will be pasted here later when the publication contract is ready. This text field
should be large enough to hold the appropriate release statement.
significantly can influence users’ experiences (before, during, and after usage), there are not many
existing empirical studies and design approaches for utilizing this new perspective to support users’
daily decision-making process in the user experience (UX) design community (Jugovac, Nunes &
Jannach 2018).
To fill this research gap, we aim to establish a foundation for a new design approach by presenting
the set-up of the development and validation of a new measurement scale on these users’ two
different types of decision-making. We developed an initial pool of the decision-making tendency
measurements based on previous literature and a focus group interview. After that, we conducted
random probes with three researchers and standard scaling procedures with eight external judges.
Furthermore, we tested the reliability of the developed scale through calculating Cronbach alpha
and test-retest-reliability. In terms of implementing users’ decision-making tendency for
personalized UX design, we expect that these findings provide a grounding for future design
research and practices that will enable design researchers and practitioners to investigate what
aspects of users’ decision-making tendency can be utilized to create more user-centred design and
technology.

2 Related Work: Maximization Tendency

A conceptual discussion on people’s maximization tendency was initially proposed by Simon (1955,
1956, 1957). After that, Schwartz et al. (2002) developed the Maximization Scale, which has been
used in most studies to measure individuals’ maximization tendency and classify them into two
categories: maximizers and satisficers. In general, maximizers tend to expect the greatest amount of
benefit from every daily opportunity, whereas satisficers tend to feel happy with their choices as
long as they think they are good enough (Cheeck & Schwartz 2016). Existing discussions thus far
have described maximizers as those who prefer avoiding losses to acquiring equivalent gains and
found that in general, they achieve better outcomes than satisficers (Diab, Gillespie & Highhouse
2008; Polman 2010; Turner, Rim, Betz & Nygren 2012).
However, there had been criticism about the reliability and validity of several follow-up studies and
measures since Schwartz et al.’s initial research (Cheeck & Schwartz 2016; Nenkov et al. 2008). For
this reason, Cheeck and Schwartz (2016) have attempted to clarify the contradictory discussions on
the meaning of maximization tendency by reviewing existing measurements since their initial work.
They emphasized the importance of investigating the implications of maximization within peoples’
specific daily contexts as well as developing domain-specific measures of maximization, in areas such
as career decision-making, romantic relationship choice, (Mikkelson & Pauley 2013) or daily product
usage contexts. They also proposed that maximization tendency may be understood within a two-
component model of maximization for future research:
… The first component is the maximization goal of choosing the best, which is the goal of
optimizing decision making by making the best choice.
…The second component of our model is the maximization strategy of alternative search,
which is the strategy of seeking out alternatives and comparing them.
Although Cheeck and Schwartz suggested this conceptual model in their review paper, there are still
not many follow-up studies to test the feasibility of the two-component model of maximization and
develop measurements based on this new suggestion. Therefore, this paper aims to expand existing

2
discussions and suggest new methods of assessment in order to understand users’ maximization
tendency in daily human-product interactions. Based on this initiative, we expect that we can
establish a foundation for a new design approach by presenting the set-up of the development and
validation of a new measurement scale on users’ two different types of decision-making tendency.

3 Initial Pool of Measurement Items

3.1 Collecting Measurement Items from Previous Literature
To expand existing discussions on maximization tendency from behavioural science to the context of
human-product interactions, three sub-constructs were operationalized to measure individuals’
maximization tendency: (1) maximization goal, (2) maximization strategy, and (3) decision difficulty.
Specifically, the first and second sub-constructs, maximization goal and maximization strategy, were
derived from the two-component model and relevant measurements from related follow-up studies
as aforementioned. The third sub-construct, decision difficulty which was proposed as a possible
sub-component related to maximization tendency, was also adapted from Turner et al. ’s study
(2012) and Misuraca et al.’s study (2015). In the process of decision-making, maximizers try to make
the best choice (maximization goal), seek out alternatives, and actively compare them (maximization
strategy). After that, they experience a situation of indecisiveness (decision difficulty) because it can
be hard for them to be convinced of the fact that there are no longer any other alternatives. Thus,
among other constructs that previous studies proposed as possible sub-components related to
maximization tendency—high standards, alternative search, decision difficulty, satisficing, regret,
and minimizing (Dalal et al. 2015; Lai 2010; Misuraca et al. 2015; Weinhardt et al. 2012)—decision
difficulty was developed as the third sub-construct to develop our initial pool of measurement items.

Figure 1. A Three-Component Model of Maximization Tendency

According to this distinction of three sub-constructs (Figure 1), the initial pool of 39 items for the
maximization tendency measurement was collected from previous maximization measures with
minor modifications.

3.2 Developing Measurement Items from Focus Group Interview

In addition to collecting measurement items from previous literature, a semi-structured focus group
interview was also conducted to develop additional items for the initial item pool. In total, four
people whose details are listed in Table 1 participated in the focus group interview for 3 hours to
collect their individual experiences in the context of daily decision-making. Their ages ranged from
36 to 63. The main topic of the focus group interview was their maximization tendency and other
3
personal characteristics or habits in their everyday context of decision-making with products or
technologies. First of all, participants were asked to describe three specific experiences of decision-
making as well as do a self-reflection about their emotions, attitudes, preferences, and behaviours
during these experiences on the pre-prepared writing form over a period of 30 minutes. In the main
group session, they discussed core satisfaction or dissatisfaction factors from among the shared
decision-making examples, including the overall characteristics of each maximizer or satisficer. At
the end of the group session, they were asked to select five keywords for describing their
maximization tendency. During the focus group interview, prepared interview procedures and a
specific session protocol were used to control overall procedures of the interview (Yin 2017).

Table 1 Demographic Details of Participants in the Focus Group Interview.

Self-Reported
ID Gender Age Current Occupation
Maximization Tendency
A Female 36 Private Investor Maximizer
B Female 37 Psychiatrist Satisificer
C Female 63 Home maker Maximizer
D Male 63 Forest commentator Satisificer

Table 2 also shows the finalized initial pool of items for maximization tendency.

Table 2 Initial Questionnaire Items Pool.

No. Questionnaire Items Sources
Maximization Goal (14 items)
1 No matter what I do, I have the highest standard of myself.
2 I never settle for second best. Schwartz et al., 2002
3 I often fantasize about living in ways that are quite different from my actual life.
4 No matter what it takes, I always try to choose the best thing.
5 I don’t like having to settle for “good enough.” Diab et al., 2008
6 I will wait for the best option, no matter how long it takes.
7 My decisions are well thought through. Lai, 2010
8 In studying or working, I always set the highest targets.
9 If I am happy with my work, I do not seek better opportunities. (Negative item)
Misuraca et al., 2015
10 In choosing between alternatives, I stop at the first that works for me. (Negative item)
11 I do not ask for more than what satisfies me. (Negative item)
12 I want to be a good decision maker who always finds the best solution.
13 I expect that my decision would be always the best choice. Focus Group Interview
14 Through setting high standards before making a decision, I could choose the best option.
Maximization Strategy (21 items)
Whenever I’m faced with a choice, I try to imagine what all the other possibilities are, even ones that aren’t
15
present at the moment.
When I am in the car listening to the radio, I often check other stations to see if something better is playing,
16
even if I am relatively satisfied with what I’m listening to.
When I watch TV, I channel surf, often scanning through the available options even while attempting to watch
17 Schwartz et al., 2002
one program.
18 I treat relationship like clothing: I expect to try a lot on before I get to the perfect fit.
19 No matter how satisfied I am with my job, it’s only right for me to be on the lookout for better opportunities.
I’m a big fan of lists that attempt to rank things (the best movies, the best signers, the best athletes, the best
20
novels, etc.).
21 I am comfortable making decisions before I know all of my options. (Reversely modified item) Diab et al., 2008
22 Before making a choice, I consider many alternatives thoroughly. Lai, 2010
23 I cannot come to a decision unless I have carefully considered all of my options.
24 I do not spend too much time to read the whole menu when dining out. (Reversely modified item)
25 I usually continue to search for an item until it reaches my expectations.
Turner et al., 2012
26 When shopping, if I can’t find exactly what I’m looking for, I will continue to search for it.
27 When shopping, I plan on spending a lot of time looking for something.
28 I take the time to consider all alternatives before making a decision.
29 I always keep my options open so I will not miss the next best choice available in life. Richardson et al., 2014

4
 30 To assure that I get the best deal, I always consult consumer product reviews before buying. Misuraca et al., 2015
31 When I have to take a subway, I do not spend too much time to find the best route. (Negative item)
32 When I have to travel, I always try to find the best deal for flights.
33 For making the best choice, I expect that I could optimize all related factors and review all alternative options. Focus Group Interview
34 In the morning, I usually spend a lot of time to consider what I have to wear today.
35 When I listen to music, I tend to follow the first music that I find interesting. (Negative item)
Decision Difficulty (14 items)
36 I often find it difficult to shop for a gift for a friend.
37 When shopping, I have a hard time finding clothing that I really love. Schwartz et al., 2002
I find that writing is very difficult, even if it’s just writing a letter to a friend, because it’s so hard to word
38
things just right. I often do several drafts of even simple things.
39 I usually have a hard time making even simple decisions.
40 I am not worried about making a wrong decision. (Reversely modified item)
41 I often wonder why decision can’t be easier.
42 The hardest part of making a decision is knowing that I will have to leave the item I didn’t choose behind.
Turner et al., 2012
43 I do not change my mind after making a decision. (Reversely modified item)
44 It’s easy for me to choose between two good alternatives. (Reversely modified item)
45 Sometimes, I procrastinate in deciding even if I have a good idea of what decision I will make.
46 I find myself often faced with difficult decisions.
Even if I see a choice I really like, I have a hard time making the decision if I do not have a chance to check out
47 Richardson et al., 2014
other possible options.
48 Sometimes, I hope that someone helps me in making an important decision.
Focus Group Interview
49 I don’t want to find a better option after making a decision.

From the focus group interview, in terms of maximization goal, three items were included asking
individuals’ attitudes towards choosing the best option when they have to decide something in their
daily context (Items 12, 13 and 14). There was a consensus that maximizers prefer to set the highest
standard and goal for every specific choice but satisficers prefer to only set the highest standard for
more long-term and broad situations, like choosing expensive products, jobs, or houses. For
example, participants A and C who thought that they have a strong maximization tendency
emphasized that, “Before making a decision for everything, I don’t want to miss any opportunity,
because I already know that I am not good at dealing with the feeling of being stressed.”
Additionally, all participants agreed that maximizers are more likely to be perfectionists, although
maximizers could differ from perfectionists. Participant B indicated that, “Most maximizers who are
around me seem to focus on every petty situation. However, I want to do my best and be a
perfectionist in my career and tasks not every moment.” These comments support previous studies
of the relationships (1) between maximization tendency and high standards and (2) between
maximization tendency and perfectionism tendency as well as (3) differences between maximizers
and satisficers regarding ‘maximization goal’. Thus, these findings were used for developing new
‘maximization goal’ items.

Furthermore, regarding maximization strategy, five items asking about individuals’ attitudes towards
investing cognitive and time resources to find other alternative options were included in the initial
pool (Item 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35). Participants reported a strong consensus that people could be
easily categorized as maximizers or satisficers according to their input level of resources for finding
the best options. More than anything, participants B and D emphasized that maximizers’ behaviour
of taking too much time to make a decision based on their standard. For instance, participant D
indicated that, “In my perspective, maximizers waste too much time in deciding on very unimportant
things like selecting clothes in the morning or what music they will listen to. Sometimes, their
ambivalence makes it difficult for them to reach a decision.” Participant A also mentioned that, “Even
if it takes a lot of time to read every review and check all alternative options, it is worth it to find the
best deal.” Furthermore, participants A and C described their maximization tendency towards
5
finding the best option when they decide on what to wear in the morning and what music to listen
to. Thus, five items were developed based on these specific comments and suggestions of the
participants.

The aspect of decision difficulty was also actively discussed among participants and two new items
for assessing decision difficulty were added to the initial pool of items (Item 48 and 49). Participants
A and C who thought that they have a maximization tendency especially highlighted that, “We
sometimes realized that this is too excessive. However, it is hard to decide at that moment because
we don’t want to experience any regret or dissatisfaction.” Participant C also said that, “Because it is
hard to understand what I really want to do or to be, I really care about other people’s reviews and
comments as a reference. Sometimes, I feel that I have to set my own criteria to be satisfied with my
decision.” On the other hand, participants (B and D) indicated that they tend to make a decision
relying on more personally-relevant information and preferences rather than other external criteria.
During the focus group interview, participants agreed that the expected effects of regret or
dissatisfaction could be a critical factor in maximizers’ decision difficulty. For this reason, items 48
and 49 were developed to assess and identify this difference between maximizers and satisficers.

Based on previous literature and findings from the focus group interview, the initial scale set is
operationalized with three sub-constructs as follows.

• Maximization Goal: Maximization goal (Item 1~14) is about individuals’ attitudes towards
choosing the best option whenever and wherever they have to decide something. Items that
assessed individuals’ attitudes and expectation level of finding the best option were
developed from the previous studies. Statements such as, “No matter what I do, I have the
highest standard of myself (Item 1)” and “No matter what it takes, I always try to choose the
best thing (Item 4)” could be the best examples of this maximization goal.
• Maximization Strategy: Maximization strategy (Items 15~35) is about individuals’ attitudes
towards making a great effort to find and review other alternative options. In this case, most
items are focused on very specific decision-making situations in our daily life. For example,
statements such as “When I watch TV, I channel surf, often scanning through the available
options even while attempting to watch one program (Item 17)”, “I do not spend too much
time to read the whole menu when dining out (Item 24 - Reverse)”, and “To assure that I get
the best deal, I always consult consumer product reviews before buying (Items 30)” could be
examples of this maximization strategy concept. Furthermore, the items such as, “When I
have to take a subway, I do not spend too much time to find the best route. (Item 31)”, and
“When I have to travel, I always try to find the best deal for flights (Item 32)” were also
developed from the insights of the longitudinal observation.
• Decision Difficulty: Decision difficulty (Items 36~49) describes the negative feelings or
situations that maximizers usually experience in the process of decision making, so items
were developed to assess these specific contexts and the emotional status of individuals. For
example, item 42 states: “The hardest part of making a decision is knowing that I will have to
leave the item I didn’t choose behind.”

4 Random Probes
To investigate (1) if 49 question items for maximization tendency in the final initial pool are unclear
and (2) if respondents interpret questions in different ways, the in-depth random probes were
6
conducted with four participants (2 females and 2 males) between 26 and 30 years of age who are
graduate students at Cornell University interested in research topics about behaviour change and
information science. Under the random probe technique, participants were asked to explain and
elaborate on the provided initial pool of measurement items on maximization tendency (Schuman
1966). After that, we analysed their responses to review our initial pool of measurement items and
improve them based on the understandings and interpretations of the random sub-samples of
respondents.

Firstly, two types of items from previous studies were eliminated: (1) those which are out of date
and (2) those which are unclear. When the participants were asked to answer the question “Could
you please give overall comments for the initial pool of items?”, they indicated that two items were
not suitable for current daily HPI contexts. As such, these two items, “When I am in the car listening
to the radio, I often check other stations to see if something better is playing, even if I am relatively
satisfied with what I’m listening to (Item 16)” and “When I watch TV, I channel surf, often scanning
through the available options even while attempting to watch one program. (Item 17),” were
eliminated from the initial pool. In addition, an item which could be unclear or ambiguous for
respondents, “My decisions are well thought through (Item 6),” was also eliminated from the pool.

Secondly, when the participants were asked to answer the question, “What do you think ‘studying or
working’ meant in item 8?”, they indicated that there could be various differences between studying
as a student and working as an employee, so it was ambiguous. Although this item was derived from
the previous study, the expression was modified from ‘studying or working’ to ‘studying’ according
to the characteristics of the test-retest target group of this paper. Moreover, in the same context,
the question, “When I have to take a subway or bus, I do not spend too much time to find the best
route (Item 31),” was modified to facilitate the understanding of the respondents. Thus, “take a
subway or bus” was also replaced with “take a bus.”

Lastly, when the participants were asked to answer the question. “How did you interpret ‘my
expectations’ in item 25?”, all respondent provided their own examples including quality, ease-of-
use, well-balanced, or price. Thus, the item “I usually continue to search for an item until it reaches
my expectations (Item 25)” was modified to “I usually continue to search for an item until it reaches
my expectations (e.g., quality, ease-of-use, well balanced, or price).”

5 Scaling Data and Interpretation

In order to derive and select items not on the basis of non-personal intuition but via the standard
scaling procedure, a total of 49 items measuring maximization tendency were administered to a
group of eight external judges who are graduate students at Cornell University between 22 and 33
years of age (6 females and 2 males). They took the survey as if they were subjects of an actual social
science study. A seven-point Likert scale was employed and the survey was performed in a pre-
programmed context by using the Google Docs survey system. After collecting their response data,
negative items on the pool were coded reversely and then the total scores for each of the judges
were calculated. The overall mean scores of each judge are: A (4.67), B (4.39), C (4.39), D (2.82), E (4.
45), F (5.14), G (4.69), and H (4.02). Based on that calculation, the top 25% judges are F and G and
the bottom 25% judges are D and H.

7
To increase the reliability and validity of the pool of items, the overall mean scores of each item for
the top 25% of judges and the bottom 25% of judges were calculated (Appendix 1, link:
https://bit.ly/3p21o6o). After that, a difference of 2.00 and above was used as the final criteria. The
difference of scores between the top 25% judges and the bottom 25% judges fell in the range from
0.00 to 4.50 with a total mean score of 2.20. Based on this quantitative baseline, all items were
reviewed again. When a mean score of 2.50 was used as the tentative criteria in the process of
reviewing items, only three items remained for maximization goal (Item 5, 6, and 11). However,
most previous studies described that items of maximization goal are more stable than items for
maximization strategy or decision difficulty (Cheeck & Schwartz 2016). For this reason, it is possible
to expect that this issue could be caused by the small number of judges in the review process. Thus,
since it was identified that the initial pool of items was more well-organized and balanced, a mean
score of 2.00 was used as the final criteria for keeping or discarding items in the initial pool.

On the basis of the new criteria described above, the number of final items measuring maximization
tendency was reduced from 49 to 29. Table 3 shows the final items identified through conducting
the standard scaling procedure.

Table 3 Final Questionnaire Items.

No. Items
1 No matter what it takes, I always try to choose the best thing.
2 I don’t like having to settle for “good enough.”
3 Maximization Goal I will wait for the best option, no matter how long it takes.
4 I do not ask for more than what satisfies me. R*
5 I want to be a good decision maker who always finds the best solution.
Whenever I’m faced with a choice, I try to imagine what all the other possibilities are, even ones that aren’t
6
present at the moment.
7 No matter how satisfied I am with my job, it’s only right for me to be on the lookout for better opportunities.
I’m a big fan of lists that attempt to rank things (e.g. the best movies, the best signers, the best athletes, the
8
best novels, etc.).
9 I am comfortable making decisions before I know all of my options. R*
10 I cannot come to a decision unless I have carefully considered all of my options.
Maximization Strategy I usually continue to search for an item until it reaches my expectations. (e.g. quality, ease-of-use, well
11
balanced, or price)
12 When shopping, if I can’t find exactly what I’m looking for, I will continue to search for it.
13 When shopping, I plan on spending a lot of time looking for something.
14 I take the time to consider all alternatives before making a decision.
15 To assure that I get the best deal, I always consult consumer product reviews before buying.
16 When I have to take a subway or bus, I do not spend too much time to find the best route. R*
17 In the morning, I usually spend a lot of time to consider what I have to wear today.
18 When shopping, I have a hard time finding clothing that I really love.
19 I usually have a hard time making even simple decisions.
20 I am not worried about making a wrong decision. R*
21 I often wonder why decision can’t be easier.
22 The hardest part of making a decision is knowing that I will have to leave the item I didn’t choose behind.
23 I do not change my mind after making a decision. R*
24 Decision Difficulty It’s easy for me to choose between two good alternatives. R*
25 Sometimes, I procrastinate in deciding even if I have a good idea of what decision I will make.
26 I find myself often faced with difficult decisions.
Even if I see a choice I really like, I have a hard time making the decision if I do not have a chance to check out
27
other possible options.
28 Sometimes, I hope that someone helps me in making an important decision.
29 I don’t want to find a better option after making a decision.
R* : Negative Item & Reverse Coding

For maximization goal, five items remained (Items 4, 5, 6, 11, and 12) and eight items were
eliminated (Items 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 13, and 14). For maximization strategy, twelve items remained
(Items 15, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, and 34) and seven items were eliminated (Items 18,

8
22, 24, 29, 32, 33, and 35). For decision difficulty, twelve items remained (Items 37, 39, 40, 41, 42,
43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, and 49) and two items were eliminated (Items 36 and 38).

6 Reliability Check
To calculate Cronbach alpha and test-retest reliability, five participants who are students at Cornell
University between 23 and 34 years of age (4 females and 1 male) were recruited and the final scale
was administered to the participants twice within a day. For Cronbach alpha, a pre-test data set was
used because it can rule out threats to internal validity such as practice effects and history. For test-
retest, both pre-test data and post-test data sets were used to calculate the reliability.

6.1 Cronbach Alpha

In this paper, internal consistency, which is one of three approaches based on the domain sampling
theory, was used to calculate the reliability of construct. Since multiple items measure each sub-
construct of maximization tendency, it is expected that these items could correlate with each other.
Moreover, maximization tendency and each sub-construct were measured as continuous variables,
which means that the most appropriate approach for these constructs could be calculating the
Cronbach Alpha value. For this reason, the Cronbach Alpha value for maximization tendency and
each sub-construct were calculated as follows:

1) The five respondents’ data for 29 questions was prepared in a form of table, including
reverse coding process for negative items.

2) The five respondents’ squared-value (x2) of each item, variance (σ2(i)) of each item, variance
of total score (σ2(x)), and final Cronbach Alpha value were calculated according to the
2 (𝑖)
𝑘 ∑𝜎
formula: rkk = 𝑘−1 [1 − ( 𝜎2 (𝑋) )]

3) The Cronbach Alpha value for overall maximization tendency was 0.974.

4) The Cronbach Alpha value for maximization goal was 0.933.

5) The Cronbach Alpha value for maximization strategy was 0.933.

6) The Cronbach Alpha value for decision difficulty was 0.951.

In general, 0.70 of Cronbach Alpha was accepted and a value as low as 0.60 could be acceptable. In
this case, the Cronbach Alpha reliability of overall maximization tendency was 0.974 and the
calculation showed a high level of Cronbach Alpha reliability (> 0.90) for all sub-constructs
(maximization goal: 0.933, maximization strategy: 0.933, decision difficulty: 0.951) as well. Overall,
the results of this calculation support the Cronbach Alpha reliability of the new measurements for
individual maximization tendency. It could be due to the fact that most measurements were not only
referred to and developed on the basis of the previous discussion but also were easy to remember
and recall for all respondents because the construct is about everyday context and behaviour.
Moreover, it may be possible that the internal consistency among items could increase because of
conducting the item elimination procedure based on top and bottom judges’ responses. As a result,
various methods and techniques for scale development helped to improve the internal consistency
of the measurements in this paper. Appendix 2-Table 1 (link: https://bit.ly/3p21o6o) shows the raw
data sheet for Cronbach Alpha calculation.

9
6.2 Test-Retest Reliability
To calculate test-retest reliability based on the theme of the classical approach, in this paper,
maximization tendency was operationalized as three stable constructs on individual decision-making
tendency. This main construct was also administered to the same participants twice to compute the
correlation between two sets of scores, time 1 and time 2 (the time gap is 48 hours). Furthermore,
since only five respondents were recruited in this phase, this approach could be an effective and
efficient way to assess the reliability. Based on this data set, Pearson Product Moment Correlation
Coefficient value for maximization tendency and each sub-construct were calculated as follows:

1) The five respondents’ data for 29 questions was prepared in the form of a table, including a
reverse coding process for negative items.

2) Response scores for each test, time 1 (X) and time 2 (Y), were computed for each
respondent.

3) XY, X2, and Y2 were computed for each respondent.

𝑋𝑌−𝑛𝑋 𝑌∑ ̅̅
4) The test-retest reliability was computed with the formula r = √(∑ 𝑋 2−𝑛𝑋
̅ 2 )(∑ 𝑌 2 −𝑛𝑌̅ 2 )
.

5) The Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient value for overall maximization
tendency was 0.996.

6) Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient value for maximization goal was 0.985.

7) Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient value for maximization strategy was 0.998.

8) Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient value for decision difficulty was 0.984.

The test-retest reliability of overall maximization tendency was 0.996 and the calculation showed a
high level of test-retest reliability (> 0.90) for all sub-constructs as well (maximization goal: 0.985,
maximization strategy: 0.998, decision difficulty: 0.984). Overall, the results of this calculation
support the test-retest reliability of the new measurements for individual maximization tendency.
Although this strong correlation may be based on the practice effects, since there are only 48 hours
between test and retest administrations, maximization tendency could be a stable measurement as
well. For this reason, to assess test-retest reliability more rigorously, the measurements might be
tested based on various time durations for future research. Appendix 2-Table 2 (link:
https://bit.ly/3p21o6o) shows the raw datasheet for the test-retest reliability calculation.

7 Discussion
In this paper, we expand the new perspective of users’ decision-making tendency from the
behavioural science field to suggest a new measurement scale for the design implementation in
human-product interactions. We concentrated on three sub-constructs of users’ maximization
tendency and developed a final set of 29 measurement items through not only conducting the focus
group interview and the random probes but also quantitively scaling data. Moreover, to check
reliability of this new measurement scale, we also calculated Cronbach alpha and test-retest
reliability based on actual respondents’ quantitative responses.

We expect that our new scale can mainly contribute to inform the understanding and development
of new types of “hyper-personalized” interfaces and products. In today’s era of data science and
10
artificial intelligence (AI), highly advanced data analytical technologies, including AI based
recommendation tools and personal informatic systems, have been implemented to predict users’
expected responses as well as provide tailored decision-making support (Jin et al., 2019). However,
not many studies have empirically and explicitly investigated how to utilize these technologies with
data that foster active engagement, sustained behavioural change, or well-being within the
viewpoint of design for users’ autonomy (Verganti, Vendraminelli & Lansiti 2020). In this vein, design
professionals have commented on the lack of a clear overarching approach for how to facilitate
individual differences in daily interactions with these technologies and products within the
perspective of “data-driven” and “human-centred” design (Amershi et al. 2019). Since traditional
approaches to personalization in HPIs have traditionally focused on individuals’ demographic
information or descriptive log data of interactions with products, our new scale can be utilized as a
new theoretical perspective for categorizing and profiling divergent users in terms of their daily
decision-making experiences. Furthermore, within a perspective of data-driven approaches for
digitization and quantification of users’ subjective decision experiences, we expect that our new
perspective could trigger active discussions on considering the “continuity” of users’ before-during-
after decision-making experiences at the intersection of behavioural science and UX design.

In terms of limitations of this paper, we recognized that our new scale was based on the small-scaled
focus group interview and validation process. Although we applied the rigorous procedures of the
traditional measurement development approach, we invite further initiatives covering a larger
population to improve validity and reliability of this new measurement. Moreover, in a future work,
more detailed variation of measurement items should be developed for investigating users’
maximization tendency in specific daily contexts of human-product interactions.

Nowadays, people as users or/and consumers are confronted with various contexts in which they
make a choice for experiencing – objects, devices, products, services, and technologies. To address
this design challenge, existing literature and design approaches have addressed the question of how
to support users’ decision-making experiences with a focus on tailoring their mood and preferences
‘at the moment’ of human-product interactions (Karimi, Holland, & Papamichail 2018; Karimi & Liu
2020). In this paper, we developed and validated a new measurement scale on users’ two different
types of decision-making tendency to provide a new perspective for design researchers and
practitioners who still struggle to improve the effectiveness of personalization for supporting users’
daily decision-making process. As we mentioned in the earlier part, there are not many existing
empirical studies and design approaches for utilizing users’ decision-making tendency to support
their daily decision-making process. For this reason, we expect that our new scale to measure users’
decision-making tendency will provide a grounding for future design research and practices in terms
of implementing various aspects of users’ individual differences for personalized UX design.

Acknowledgments. This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea,
the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2020S1A5A2A03045893), and Cornell Center for
Social Sciences.

References
Amershi, S., Weld, D., Vorvoreanu, M., Fourney, A., Nushi, B., Collisson, P., Suh, J., Iqbal, S., Bennett, P.N.,
Inkpen, K. & Teevan, J., 2019. Guidelines for human-AI interaction. In Proceedings of the 2019 chi conference
on human factors in computing systems, pp. 1-13.

11
 Cheeck, N. N. & Schwartz, B., 2016. On the meaning and measurement of maximization. Judgment and
Decision Making, 11(2), pp.126-146.
Dalal, D.K., Diab, D.L., Zhu, X. & Hwang, T., 2015. Understanding the construct of maximizing tendency: A
theoretical and empirical evaluation. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 28(5), pp.437-450.
Diab, D. L., Gillespie, M. A. & Highhouse, S., 2008. Are maximizers really unhappy? The measurement of
maximizing tendency. Judgment and Decision Making, 3(5), pp.364-370.
Jin, Y., Cai, W., Chen, L., Htun, N. N. & Verbert, K., 2019. MusicBot: Evaluating critiquing-based music
recommenders with conversational interaction. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on
Information and Knowledge Management, pp. 951-960.
Jugovac, M., Nunes, I. & Jannach, D., 2018. Investigating the decision-making behavior of maximizers and
satisficers in the presence of recommendations. In Proceedings of the 26th Conference on User Modeling,
Adaptation and Personalization, pp. 279-283.
Kamiya, A. S. M., Zeelenberg, M. & da Costa Hernandez, J. M., 2021. Regulating regret via decreasing goal
level: Comparing maximizers and satisficers. Personality and Individual Differences, 178, pp.110870.
Karimi, S., Holland, C. P. & Papamichail, K. N., 2018. The impact of consumer archetypes on online purchase
decision-making processes and outcomes: A behavioural process perspective. Journal of Business Research, 91,
pp.71-82.
Karimi, S. & Liu, Y. L., 2020. The differential impact of “mood” on consumers’ decisions, a case of mobile
payment adoption. Computers in Human Behavior, 102, pp.132-143.
Lai, L., 2010. Maximizing without difficulty: A modified maximizing scale and its correlates. Judgment and
Decision Making, 5(3), p.164-175.
Mikkelson, A.C. & Pauley, P.M., 2013. Maximizing relationship possibilities: Relational maximization in
romantic relationships. The Journal of Social Psychology, 153(4), pp.467-485.
Misuraca, R., Faraci, P., Gangemi, A., Carmeci, F.A. & Miceli, S., 2015. The Decision-Making Tendency
Inventory: A new measure to assess maximizing, satisficing, and minimizing. Personality and Individual
Differences, 85, pp.111-116.
Misuraca, R. & Fasolo, B., 2018. Maximizing versus satisficing in the digital age: disjoint scales and the case for
“construct consensus”. Personality and Individual Differences, 121, pp.152-160.
Nenkov, G.Y., Morrin, M., Schwartz, B., Ward, A. & Hulland, J., 2008. A short form of the Maximization Scale:
Factor structure, reliability and validity studies. Judgment and Decision Making, 3(5), pp.371-388.
Polman, E., 2010. Why are maximizers less happy than satisficers? Because they maximize positive and
negative outcomes. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 23(2), pp.179-190.
Richardson, C.M., Ye, H.J., Ege, E., Suh, H. & Rice, K.G., 2014. Refining the measurement of maximization:
Gender invariance and relation to psychological well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 70, pp.229-
234.
Schuman, H., 1966. The random probe: A technique for evaluating the validity of closed questions. American
Sociological Review, pp.218-222.
Schwartz, B., Ward, A., Monterosso, J., Lyubomirsky, S., White, K. & Lehman, D.R., 2002. Maximizing versus
satisficing: happiness is a matter of choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(5), pp.1178-1197.
Simon, H.A., 1955. A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Jjournal of Economics, 69(1), pp.99-
118.
Simon, H.A., 1956. Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63(2), pp.129-
138.
Simon, H. A., 1957. Models of Man, Social and Rational Mathematical Essays on Rational Human Behavior in
Society Setting. New York, NY Wiley.
Turner, B. R., Rim, H. B., Betz, N. E. & Nygren, T. E., 2012. The Maximization Inventory. Judgment and Decision
Making, 7, pp.48-60.
Verganti, R., Vendraminelli, L. & Iansiti, M., 2020. Innovation and design in the age of artificial intelligence.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 37(3), pp.212-227.
Weinhardt, J.M., Morse, B.J., Chimeli, J. & Fisher, J., 2012. An item response theory and factor analytic
examination of two prominent maximizing tendency scales. Judgment & Decision Making, 7(5), pp.644-658.
Yin, R.K., 2017. Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage publications.

12

View publication stats