Is satisficing really satisfying? Satisficers exhibit greater threat than maximizers during choice overload.

When selecting from too many options (i.e., choice overload), maximizers (people who search exhaustively to make decisions that are optimal) report more negative post-decisional evaluations of their choices than do satisficers (people who search minimally to make decisions that are sufficient). Although ample evidence exists for differences in responses after-the-fact, little is known about possible divergences in maximizers' and satisficers' experiences during choice overload. Thus, using the biopsychosocial model of challenge/threat, we examined 128 participants' cardiovascular responses as they actively made a selection from many options. Specifically, we focused on cardiovascular responses assessing the degree to which individuals (a) viewed their decisions as valuable/important and (b) viewed themselves as capable (vs. incapable) of making a good choice. Although we found no differences in terms of the value individuals placed on their decisions (i.e., cardiovascular responses of task engagement), satisficers-compared to maximizers-exhibited cardiovascular responses consistent with feeling less capable of making their choice (i.e., greater relative threat). The current work provides a novel investigation of the nature of differences in maximizers'/satisficers' momentary choice overload experiences, suggesting insight into why they engage in such distinct search behaviors.