Study Finds “Aim High” Strategy Works—But Only Up to a Point, Scientists Say

A new scientific study suggests that popular life advice such as “shoot for the moon” and “aim high” contains only part of the truth, and that excessive ambition can be just as counterproductive as setting expectations too low.

The research, led by bioeconomist Matthew Burgess of the University of Wyoming, examines how individuals make decisions when searching for rewards—ranging from animals foraging for food to humans making choices in everyday life. Using mathematical modelling, Burgess and his colleagues explored when it is best to keep striving and when it is wiser to settle for what has already been achieved.

The team’s findings show that the most successful outcomes come from setting goals slightly above the average, rather than chasing extreme or unrealistic targets. In the model, participants—described as “agents”—searched for rewards over time and repeatedly faced the decision of whether to continue searching or stop once they had achieved a certain level of success.

According to the results, stopping below average performance leads to missed opportunities, while pushing expectations too high results in wasted time and lower overall gains. The optimal strategy, researchers found, lies in a balanced approach: ambition should exceed average expectations but remain within realistic limits.

“What we see is that optimal ambition is above average, but not infinite,” Burgess said, noting that persistence pays off only up to a certain threshold.

Co-author Ekaterina Landgren, a postdoctoral fellow at Stanford University, said the findings challenge cultural messages that encourage people to constantly push harder regardless of context. She explained that ambition is most effective when rewards are abundant, but becomes risky when opportunities are limited or uncertain.

The study also highlights how perception influences decision-making. In one version of the model, individuals judged success based on observing others, similar to how people today may compare themselves through social media. This often led participants to overestimate what was realistically achievable, resulting in poorer outcomes due to endless searching and dissatisfaction.

James O’Dwyer, a theoretical ecologist at the University of Illinois who was not involved in the research, said the work reflects a growing understanding of how humans misjudge opportunity when relying on incomplete information. He noted that people often see only the “highlight reel” of others’ success, which distorts expectations.

Landgren added that this imbalance can create a cycle where individuals feel nothing is ever good enough. She pointed to examples such as “CVs of failure,” where successful academics publicly list rejected applications to show a more complete picture of achievement.

The study ultimately suggests that while ambition is beneficial, it must be calibrated carefully. Too little ambition limits progress, but too much can reduce success—leaving the most effective strategy somewhere in the middle.