How often do you release information about your meeting or event by piecemeal? Or do you wait until everything is ready before letting attendees know the details? 

If you're in the piecemeal category, you could be doing yourself—and your event—a disservice. According to a new study in the Journal of Consumer Research, consumers may be less satisfied with the choices they make if their options are presented one at a time rather than all at once.

“Sequentially presented choices create uncertainty. Consumers know that alternatives will become available in the future, but not what those alternatives will be. So there is always the possibility that a better option could later be available,” wrote authors Cassie Mogilner (Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania), Baba Shiv (Stanford University) and Sheena Iyengar (Columbia University).

Many decisions—such as a book at a store, an entrée at a restaurant or a pair of shoes—involve choosing from options presented all at once. However, many important decisions—such as choosing a job, a home or even who to marry—involve options presented one at a time. 

In a series of experiments, consumers presented with options one at a time ended up less satisfied with, and ultimately less committed to, their choices than those presented with their options all at once. Consumers presented with their options all at once tended to remain focused on the current set of options and focused on comparing them against each other, whereas those presented with their options one at a time tended to imagine a better option, hoping it would eventually become available. This feeling of hope undermined how they later experienced their choice, resulting in lower satisfaction and commitment levels.

“The primary difference between sequentially and simultaneously presented options is the presence of alternatives," the authors wrote. "Consumer satisfaction with a chosen option depends less on its objective merits, and more on how it compares to alternatives—real or imagined. Enjoying the most satisfaction from our choices might require being willing to give up the eternal quest for the best."

What are your thoughts about the way options are presented and overall satisfaction? 

(Story materials from The University of Chicago Press.)

Character strengths can be defined as morally positively valued attributes, such as self-control, teamwork and friendliness. Strengths that are peculiar to a person and frequently used by individuals are called signature strengths. Each person typically has three to seven. For the first time, Claudia Harzer and Willibald Ruch from the Department of Personality Psychology and Diagnostics at the University of Zurich have shown in two studies that a job is particularly valued if it aligns with one's signature strengths. In fact, employees will have a more positive work experience due to enjoyment, sense of purpose and satisfaction.

In the first study, Harzer and Ruch surveyed more than 1,000 workers about the expression of their character strengths, whether they are able to apply these strengths at work and how positively they experience their work. In their second study, besides self-assessments the scientists also analyzed how the test subjects' colleagues rate the applicability of the character strengths.

The degree of positive experiences increases with the number of signature strengths applied. In both studies, people who are able to apply four or more signature strengths at work have the highest values in terms of positive experience. They enjoy work more, are more wrapped up in it, perceive their work as more meaningful and are more satisfied with their job. These people also perceive their work more as a calling than people who are able to apply three signature strengths or fewer in the workplace.

The researcher's findings provide insights that might be useful for the selection of personnel, human resources development and workplace design.

"If it is clarified which character strengths are central for the job before a position is filled, a person can be recruited based on these strengths," Harzer said. "Employers and employees only stand to benefit from this.

(Story materials via the University of Zurich and AlphaGalileo.)

Recent research out of the University of California-Riverside suggests that ambition drives happiness.

Assistant marketing professor Cecile K. Cho concluded that consumers who set ambitious goals have a greater level of satisfaction compared to those who set conservative goals.

Two experiments were conducted to compare people who set ambitious goals to those who set conservative goals. They focused on situations in which goals were achieved, and measured the level of satisfaction with the achieved goals.

In the first experiment, 134 participants were asked to set a target rate of return that they would be satisfied with and asked to pick from a percentage range of 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 or 20. Low goal setters were defined as those who set the rate at 14 percent or lower.  High goal setters were those who set the rate at greater than 14 percent.

Participants were then asked to allocate their US$5,400 budget by picking three of 20 fictitious stocks presented to them. After a 10-minute filler task, participants received the return of their stock portfolio, handwritten by the experimenter so it matched their goal. Participants were led to believe their stock allocation had been entered into a database to get actual returns.

The experimenters then concocted three feedback scenarios.

In the first one, only the stock performance information was provided. This is called the “default” condition of interest. In the second one, the participants were first told the typical return of stocks was 6 percent to 20 percent and then told how their stocks performed. In the last scenario, participants were first reminded what their goal was and then told how their stocks performed. Participants were then asked to rate their satisfaction on 9-point scales.

Of interest is whether all participants, who achieve their goals, are similarly happy. Existing research would predict that those who achieve their goals should be satisfied. Results suggested otherwise.

In the first “default” scenario, high goal setters average satisfaction was 7.85 while low goal setters were at 6.53.

In the third scenario, where the range of possible outcomes was reiterated, a similarly large gap occurred between high-goal setters (8.57) and low goal setters (6.98).

In the second scenario, where participants were reminded of their goal, the gap in happiness level between the two groups disappeared, with high goal setters at 7.72 and low goal setters at 7.46.

This suggested that when people set goals, they don’t necessarily recall this goal to evaluate their performance, but recruit a higher comparison point to do so. This upward comparison process likely negatively impacts their satisfaction with the performance of their portfolio.

A second experiment involving puzzles found similar results.

“The moral of the story is don’t sell yourself short,” Cho said. “Aim high.”

(Story materials provided by the University of California-Riverside.)