Tóm Tắt Nội Dung Bài Viết
The reading passage Decision Making and Happiness delves into one of the most famous paradoxes in modern behavioral psychology: does having too many choices truly make people happier? By contrasting two distinct personality types—those who pursue absolute perfection (maximizers) and those content with “good enough” (satisficers)—the research reveals that the burden of opportunity costs and the fear of regret often turn an abundance of choices into a source of disappointment. This test assesses candidates’ critical thinking skills through three question types: Matching Categories, True/False/Not Given, and Multiple Choice. Below is a detailed breakdown, including a translation and a compilation of key academic vocabulary, to help you understand this reading passage more thoroughly.
Reading Passage
Decision making and Happiness
[Paragraph A] Americans today choose among more options in more parts of life than has ever been possible before. To an extent, the opportunity to choose enhances our lives. It is only logical to think that if some choices are good, more is better; people who care about having infinite options will benefit from them, and those who do not can always just ignore the 273 versions of cereal they have never tried. Yet recent research strongly suggests that, psychologically, this assumption is wrong, with a 5% lower percentage announcing they are happy. Although some choices are undoubtedly better than none, more is not always better than less.
[Paragraph B] Recent research offers insight into why many people end up unhappy rather than pleased when their options expand. We began by making a distinction between “maximizers” (those who always aim to make the best possible choice) and “satisficers” (those who aim for “good enough,” whether or not better selections might be out there).
[Paragraph C] In particular, we composed a set of statements—the Maximization Scale—to diagnose people’s propensity to maximize. Then we had several thousand people rate themselves from 1 to 7 (from “completely disagree” to “completely agree”) on such statements as “I never settle for second best.” We also evaluated their sense of satisfaction with their decisions. We did not define a sharp cutoff to separate maximizers from satisficers, but in general, we think of individuals whose average scores are higher than 4 (the scale’s midpoint) as maximizers and those whose scores are lower than the midpoint as satisficers. People who score highest on the test—the greatest maximizers—engage in more product comparisons than the lowest scorers, both before and after they make purchasing decisions, and they take longer to decide what to buy. When satisficers find an item that meets their standards, they stop looking. But maximizers exert enormous effort reading labels, checking out consumer magazines and trying new products. They also spend more time comparing their purchasing decisions with those of others.
[Paragraph D] We found that the greatest maximizers are the least happy with the fruits of their efforts. When they compare themselves with others, they get little pleasure from finding out that they did better and substantial dissatisfaction from finding out that they did worse. They are more prone to experiencing regret after a purchase, and if their acquisition disappoints them, their sense of well-being takes longer to recover. They also tend to brood or ruminate more than satisficers do.
[Paragraph E] Does it follow that maximizers are less happy in general than satisficers? We tested this by having people fill out a variety of questionnaires known to be reliable indicators of well being. As might be expected, individuals with high maximization scores experienced less satisfaction with life and were less happy, less optimistic and more depressed than people with low maximization scores. Indeed, those with extreme maximization ratings had depression scores that placed them in the borderline of clinical range.
[Paragraph F] Several factors explain why more choice is not always better than less,



No comments yet!