Imagine you need to buy a mobile phone. You go to a shop and find a nice mobile that meets your requirements. As soon as you think you have decided on the one you want to buy, a salesperson shows up and directs you toward a shelf with the latest models that will “arrive soon.” The newest ones have superior features such as a professional camera, the latest apps, enhanced storage, and phone security. You can buy the one you chose or wait for a new model. The one you chose is what you need; however, if you are willing to wait, you can get better than what you need. What would you do? This is a common dilemma in a capitalistic market society: whether to strive to attain something beyond your needs or choose a satisfactory option.

The above scenario also familiarizes us with the common decision strategies of maximizing and satisficing. Maximizing is striving for the best possible option while satisficing is choosing a good enough or satisfactory option (Schwartz et al., 2002). Maximizers have a higher acceptance threshold for a decision than satisficers (Iyengar et al., 2006). The present study attempts to assess differences between maximizing and satisficing in a traditional agrarian and a metropolitan capitalistic context in a developing country, predicting higher maximizing in the latter due to cultural, market, and economic factors.

Maximizing

Maximizing or getting the best output has been understood to be the primary aim of decision-making. Classical economic theories of rational decision-making (Smith, 1991) and utility theory (Von Neumann & Morgenstern, 1944) suggest that when deciding, people consider all options available and choose the one that maximizes their benefit. In other words, maximizing was considered rational and conducive to personal happiness. However, it turned out that this assumption was incorrect in two aspects. First, very often, people do not have all the required information available, or they do not have the cognitive capacities required to carefully consider the information. Therefore, later psychological theories claimed that one’s rationality is “bounded” due to various constraints imposed by the environment and one’s capacity. Consequently, one can only make a sub-optimal decision (Simon, 1955). Second, it turned out that the proliferation of choice can have detrimental consequences for decision-making and well-being for several reasons. For example, using the provocative term “tyranny of freedom,” Schwartz (2000, p. 79) provided three major reasons why too many choices may have negative consequences. First, gathering adequate information in contexts with abundant options simply requires more effort than if only a few options exist. Simultaneously, in response to the mere existence of many options, people may change (or often raise) their standards for evaluating them. Thirdly, if many options are available, people may experience enhanced accountability, particularly for sub-optimal decisions. Given the many existing alternatives, the individual feels great responsibility for making a wrong choice. In other words, many options not only provide freedom of choice but are also likely to induce regret after the choice is made.

However, research has revealed that not everybody is equally affected by the negative consequences of too much choice. For example, behavioral studies have found that some people seek the most out of their decisions; that is, they maximize (Schwartz et al., 2002). The flip side of maximizing is satisficing, which means choosing a satisfactory and sufficient option. Studies in various life domains, such as shopping behavior (Schwartz et al., 2002), investment decisions (Botti & Iyengar, 2006), or choosing topics for student assignments and making a job search (Iyengar et al., 2006) show individual differences in maximizing and satisficing preferences.

Culture, Affluence and Choice: An Overview

The increasing proliferation of choice is one of the essential characteristics of modern society, especially in the West (Botti & Iyengar, 2006; Rosenthal, 2005). Some authors even argue that growing market integration and individualism make decision-making and maximizing necessary for the individual (Beck, 2002; Botti & Iyengar, 2006). However, most previous studies were done in Western, developed, and individualistic cultures, where individual freedom is considered integral to society. Would maximizing hold the same value and effects in non-individualistic cultures where personal choice and freedom are not considered highly critical?

Cross-cultural studies compared maximizing and its emotional consequences in individualistic and collectivistic cultures to answer this question. In one of the first investigations of its kind, Roets et al. (2012) compared the degree of maximizing and satisficing in people from North American and Western European individualistic cultures, where choice is abundant, and the collectivistic Chinese culture, which does not emphasize individual choice to the same degree.

While Roets et al. (2012) did not predict or find any cultural difference in decision-making strategies as such (but only in the psychological consequences thereof), subsequent studies present a different picture. For instance, Oishi et al. (2014) conducted a comparative study involving American individualistic and Japanese collectivistic participants to obtain economically compatible contexts because some parts of China are less developed than Western countries. These authors predicted that maximizing tendencies should be more pronounced in the West, where individual freedom of choice is cherished, than in Japan, where it is not. Accordingly, it was found that participants from the USA maximized more than Japanese participants. This study underscores the need to carefully differentiate cultural and economic factors that may affect the degree of maximizing versus satisficing, highlighting the complexity and depth of the research.

Another recent study on this trend in 27 countries (Hornsey et al., 2018) compared differences in maximization concerning life goals such as freedom, happiness, longevity, and health between Eastern holistic and Western analytical cultures. Holistic cultures hold the values of change, acceptance of contradiction, and contextuality as necessary. Hence, the seemingly “best” outcome might lose value in different times and contexts. Also, acceptance of contradiction, which means positive and negative experiences complement each other, would lead to a different understanding of the “best” outcome in holistic than it would in analytical cultures. Due to these values and processes, maximizing is not considered to be a worthwhile effort. Moreover, the authors found that people in holistic cultures practice moderation (i.e., they aim for neither a lack nor excess); however, people in Western analytical cultures maximize life ideals.

In sum, previous studies into maximizing versus satisficing across cultures and contexts yielded mixed results, indicating that one probably needs to look beyond the cultural factors previously studied. These investigations also emphasize the necessity to empirically distinguish between cultural and economic factors that feed into a person’s decision-making strategy. Therefore, the present study aims to address the mixed findings regarding maximizing tendencies in two ways: (a) addressing the cultural differences in maximizing on an immediate ecological rural–urban level and (b) in addition to cultural factors, to examine if market and economic differences in rural–urban contexts contribute to differences in maximizing, especially in a developing country where rural–urban differences are salient.

While it is essential to distinguish between cultural (i.e., individualism–collectivism) and economic factors (affluence), it is also crucial to recognize that these factors are not entirely independent. Numerous classical studies have highlighted the association between economic development and individualistic values and practices (Beck, 2002; Inglehart, 1997; McClelland, 1961). A recent longitudinal study further supports this outcome, reporting that individualistic values and practices are particularly prevalent in economically developed contexts (Santos et al., 2017). In this study, economic development was characterized by urbanization, a high number of white-collar jobs, occupational prestige, and a higher income than corresponding levels in the agrarian sector. Therefore, individualistic values and practices are pronounced in societies with many white-collar jobs, high incomes, education, and job prestige. In contrast, collectivistic values and practices are associated with an agrarian–subsistence economy, low income, and education.

In addition to national cultural differences, regional differences may play a crucial role, in particular, regarding socio-ecological rural–urban differences (Greenfield, 2009; Kağıtçıbaşı, 2012). Social ecology, as conceptualized by Brofenbrenner (1979), is a term for environment systems and comprises one’s immediate social and physical environment (e.g., economic systems, political systems, or relational structures), which affect individual psychological processes, decisions, and behavior (Oishi & Graham, 2010). Individualistic and collectivistic cultural–economic differences are also evident in relational structures (e.g., relational mobility and tightness of norms), socio-market values (e.g., hierarchic self-interest), and economic priorities (survival or high-level needs).

In the present study, we consider the above-mentioned proximal factors that could potentially explain rural–urban differences in maximizing. The cultural factors comprise relational mobility and tightness–looseness of norms, market orientation of hierarchic self-interest, subjective economic priorities (e.g., necessity and luxury), and various classical economic indicators (e.g., income). In short, the goal of the present research is to test for the cultural and economic factors that support maximizing or satisficing. We aim to attain this goal within the context of the Indian national culture while acknowledging regional, cultural, and economic differences, particularly in the factors that govern the lives of corporate employees in urban environments and those that govern the lives of agrarian workers in rural environments.

Socio-Cultural and Ecological Factors

Rural and urban contexts differ in their social and relational structure. Urban metropolitan contexts are complex due to high relational mobility and loose social norms. Relational mobility implies having a choice in relationships, that is, the ability to form new relationships and change existing ones (Yuki & Schug, 2012). This situation contrasts with relationally fixed cultures, where kinship is essential and relations are given and long-lasting (Thomson et al., 2018). Given that metropolitan societies are open regarding individual choices, relational mobility is higher in metropolitan social ecologies than in rural ones (Yamagishi et al., 2012). Further, compared to rural contexts, flexibility in relations in the metropolitan context is reflected in relatively malleable social norms. Differences in social norms are characterized by social monitoring and tolerance of deviant behavior. Rural societies have more social constraints and social monitoring than metropolitan societies (Yamagishi et al., 2012). Therefore, in metropolitan societies, people have a broad scope for making individual choices and maximizing for themselves because “standing out” is not as socially consequential as it is in rural contexts.

Market and Economic Factors

Metropolitan societies differ from rural ones in terms of market integration, leading to differences in market and economic values. One of the values associated with market integration is hierarchic self-interest (HSI). Market-driven societies and modernization lead to market-conducive self-interest characterized by competition, individualism, success orientation, and acceptance of social inequality. Previous studies involving East- and West-German youth showed that transitioning to a market economy leads to high HSI values (Hagan et al., 1999). These values of self-interest should, theoretically, lead to high maximizing in metropolitan market-driven societies.

Economic perceptions, a proposed factor in the current study, can be differentiated as necessities (needs) and wants (luxuries or desires). Economic priorities regarding necessities and wants differ in rural and metropolitan societies. Needs are based on physical or psychological tension, which fades once fulfilled. Wants and desires are unnecessary and do not follow the principle of adequacy, but have the property of being unappeasable (Baumann, 2001). Metropolitan market-driven societies have a high capitalistic orientation (Shahrier et al., 2016). Capitalistic societies are based on consumerism and want rather than needs that cannot be fulfilled (Tripathi & Mishra, 2012). Consumer values in capitalistic societies do not distinguish between needs that can be appeased and indefinite and insatiable desires (Bauman, 2001).

Conversely, rural agrarian societies are subsistence-oriented and, therefore, emphasize fulfilling necessities and obtaining security (Scott, 1976). Studies on South-East Asian small-scale farming communities provide evidence for this position. Farmers, especially small-scale agricultural laborers, make economic decisions based on a “safety first” principle that secures minimum living standards. Since the traditional ways of farming and living are familiar and have consistently provided minimum living standards in the past, the costs and risks associated with profit-maximizing decisions are usually avoided in these contexts.

The priority for a guaranteed minimum over individual maximizing is also reflected in the social transactions in rural traditional societies. During a crisis, stable kinship ties and village norms provide a safety net. Relatives and village elders are obliged to help with resources when needed, which is expected to be reciprocated later by the recipient. Thus, the tight norms and social monitoring in subsistence societies reduce the chances of maximizing for oneself; however, these norms and monitoring provide secure and predictable ways of living.

High living standards in urban areas can lead to elevated aspirations. Studies show that the fulfillment of basic needs escalates one’s demand for necessities (Maslow, 1954). Therefore, when people’s basic needs are fulfilled, they aspire to high levels of needs (e.g., belongingness). It is possible that in rural contexts, people prioritize survival and subsistence needs; and in urban metropolitan contexts, because people have much, they have elevated aspirations and needs. This situation might lead to a higher general maximizing tendency in urban areas than in rural areas.

Cultural, market, and economic differences in rural and urban contexts are also reflected in decision-making. Studies on small-scale societies show that cooperation in economic games varies more in such societies than in large industrialized societies (Henrich et al., 2005). The primary factors leading to these differences are socio-cultural environments (for example, being from industrialized, farming, or herding communities) and market integration (how well a society is absorbed in a market system and how comfortable one is in engaging in transactions with a stranger). Another study comparing social value orientations in traditional rural, transitional, and metropolitan capitalistic contexts in Bangladesh found that people in capitalistic contexts make relatively more self-oriented decisions. In contrast, people in rural, traditional contexts make relatively more other-regarding decisions (Shahrier et al., 2016).

The above cultural and economic differences in rural and urban socio-ecologies are not just interesting observations—they are also highly relevant to our study. The rural–urban gap in developing countries is higher than in developed countries, and this gap is a significant area of concern. Developing countries have a higher proportion of rural workers than developed countries. The rural workforce in developing countries is also not aligned with the rapidly increasing free market of the global economy (Salim, 2015).

Rural–Urban Contexts in Developing Countries

As mentioned earlier, the rural–urban divide is more pronounced in developing than in industrialized countries. This situation is not just a statistic but a pressing concern that needs to be addressed. Approximately 35–50% of the workforce is involved in agricultural labor in developing countries, but the figure is only 1–5% in developed countries. The rural workforce in developing countries consists mainly of small landholders who are not well equipped for the increasing global market competition due to open-market policies in developing countries (Salim, 2015).

The opening of markets in developing countries since the late 1980s (Edwards, 1997) has led to a rise in the development of special economic zones (SEZs). These zones are metropolitan regions characterized by the presence of multinational corporations and a dominant private and service sector. The tax norms for trade in these regions are relatively relaxed to encourage foreign investments and companies (Akinci & Crittle, 2008).

It is predicted that metropolitan contexts in developing countries will have cultural and market environments conducive to a capitalistic orientation. This outcome will lead to a high preference for maximizing among the inhabitants. Conversely, rural societies will have many subsistence-oriented cultural and economic environments and, therefore, will be relatively more satisficing.

Indian Context

This study was carried out in the Indian context. India is a developing country. India was primarily an agrarian economy until a few decades ago. After it gained independence in 1947, land reforms and Green Revolution policies were enacted to spur the agricultural sector. Later, the focus of the economy shifted toward the public sector and banking systems. In the 1990s, liberalization policies were adopted, opening the Indian market to the global economy. The service sector became the dominant economic activity in metropolitan regions (OECD, 2020). Since then, the service sector has contributed the most to the national income. Nevertheless, agriculture employed 47% of the total workforce in the country in 2012, while the service sector employed approximately 28% of the workforce (Majid, 2019).

In India, the proportion of the population living in rural areas (almost 69%) is higher than the corresponding proportion living in urban areas (only 31%; Census, 2011a, b, c, d, e, f). The country’s literacy rate is 74.04%, and the sex ratio is 943 women to 1000 men.

The rural and urban districts where the study was conducted are situated in northern India. Both districts are in a region known as the Hindi Belt, where Hindi is the primary language of speaking and writing (LaDousa, 2020). The study involved farmers in the rural region of Bhadohi and white-collar corporate employees in the metropolitan region of Gurugram.

The rural region where the study was conducted is the district of Bhadohi in the state of Uttar Pradesh. The state has the highest number of agricultural land holdings in the country. The district has a large population, of which approximately 70% are dependent on agriculture (Krishi Vigyan Kendra Bhadohi, 2015), and most of them are small-scale farmers. There are 1217 villages in the district. The literacy rate in the region is 69%, and the sex ratio is 955 women to 1000 men (Census, 2011a, b, c, d, e, f).

The district of Gurugram is a metropolitan region in the state of Haryana. Gurugram is an SEZ under an extensive national urban planning and development program aimed at increasing industrialization and transport development in the region. Numerous multinational and Forbes-listed companies and a thriving outsourcing and information technology sector characterize the district. The city of Gurugram has many shopping malls and skyscrapers (Census, 2011a, b, 2c, d, e, f). The literacy rate in the region is 87.37%, and the sex ratio is 848 women to 1000 men (Census, 2011a, 2b, c, d, e, f). The uneven female-to-male ratio can be attributed to job migration: Migration in search of jobs to metropolitan regions is more common among men than among women (Singh et al., 2015). Men also tend to leave their families in their hometowns (Desai & Banerjee, 2008).

Predictions

The study proposes regional differences in maximizing and a mediational hypothesis, predicting that differences in maximizing between rural and metropolitan contexts will be mediated by socio-cultural, market, and economic factors. The specific hypotheses are given below:

H1

The overall prediction for the study was that people in the metropolitan context would maximize more than people in the rural context.

The relation mentioned above between the rural–metropolitan contexts and maximizing would coincide with the following socio-cultural, market, and economic differences:

H2

People in the metropolitan context would report higher relational mobility than people in the rural context.

H3

People in the metropolitan context would perceive social norms to be relatively looser than people in the rural context would.

H4

People in the metropolitan context would have higher hierarchic self-interest than people in the rural context.

H5

People in the metropolitan context would report more necessities than people in the rural context would.

H6

People in the metropolitan context would have higher standards of living than people in the rural context.

The above predictions lead to the mediational hypothesis for the study:

H7

Higher maximizing in the metropolitan compared to the rural context would be mediated by higher relational mobility, more relaxed perception of norms, higher hierarchic self-interest, more perceived needs, and higher standards of living in the metropolitan than in the rural context.