Abstract
Before making a final choice, people screen available options for acceptability; those considered “good enough” constitute a goal-category. Foraging theories assume screening is an adaptation whereby low-ranked options are accepted when search costs (i.e., effort or risk associated with striving) are high and rejected when search costs are low. We argue that some individuals, called interval strategists, typically consider many options acceptable and, hence, form broad goal-categories; others, called point strategists, typically consider few options acceptable and form narrow goal-categories. We also argue that because of limited capacity, there is a trade-off between encoding ends and encoding means so that as the goal-category range increases, detailed planning decreases. Findings in our first study support this analysis. The next two studies assumed search costs in Poland (e.g., the effort or risk involved in shopping, housing, traveling) were greater under central planning than under the current market economy. Hence, prior to 1989, broad goal-categories were more adaptive than narrow goal-categories; since 1989, however, the reverse has been true. Consistent with this hypothesis, in Study 2, Poles who were point strategists perceived their conditions of life and self-efficacy had improved more since 1989 than did Poles who were interval strategists. Study 3 demonstrates a capacity to recognize which screening strategy is more adaptive under central planning and market conditions: An entrepreneur who failed prior to 1989 but succeeded afterward was inferred to be a point strategist, and one who succeeded prior to 1989 but failed afterward was inferred to be an interval strategist.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.