The art of thinking · 6 · Judgment, action and error

Satisficing

Also known as: Satisfice

German: Satisficing

Satisficing, a term coined by Herbert A. Simon, is a decision strategy under bounded rationality in which a person searches through options until finding one that meets an aspiration level — one that is good enough — instead of searching for the best possible option.

Cognitive psychology
Judgment
Decision making

In one sentence

Satisficing (Herbert A. Simon, 1956) is choosing the first option that is good enough instead of searching for the best one.

Example

Searching the online help for “reset error”, a technician opens the first result that seems to fit and follows it, without checking whether a later result describes the exact error code.

What the research shows

Herbert A. Simon (1956) argued that organisms with limited knowledge and computing capacity cannot maximize; instead they satisfice — they set an aspiration level and take the first alternative that reaches it, adjusting the level if alternatives are easy or hard to find. Satisficing is a central idea of bounded rationality. Jon A. Krosnick (1991) applied it to surveys: respondents who lack motivation or ability give the first acceptable answer instead of an optimal one, for example by choosing the first plausible option. Barry Schwartz and colleagues (2002) developed a questionnaire contrasting people who tend to maximize with those who tend to satisfice.

Evidence status

Satisficing is a well-established concept in economics, decision research and psychology; that people often stop searching when an option is good enough is widely observed. As a strategy it is often reasonable when search is costly — it is not a defect in itself. Whether a decision was satisficing is hard to show directly, since the aspiration level is rarely observable. Satisficing does not support the claim that “people don't read”: readers read as much as their goal and the cost of further searching seem to require.

How it applies

Readers stop at the first plausible answer — the first search hit, the first step that seems to fit, the first troubleshooting cause that matches. The glossary “Applied cognitive psychology for information use” covers the design side, for example information foraging theory, information scent and scanning. Satisficing readers are one reason why safety-related information belongs where the action is described, not only in a separate chapter.

External references

How to read this pool

Entries, context cards and transitional topics

The art of thinking explains ways of thinking — where a method comes from, what it asks of you and how it was adapted later. You meet four kinds of content here, each with its own job:

Glossary entry: Defines one concept or method of thinking: its origin, an example and how it relates to neighboring ideas. “X vs. Y” sections set two methods side by side.
Context card of the art of thinking: A short, self-contained answer to one question about a way of thinking — its lineage, its steps, its limits. These cards are listed on The art of thinking only.
Transitional topicBridges both pools: A context card that bridges both pools: it shows how a way of thinking was adapted into documentation, analysis or quality practice. It sits with the reference context cards and is marked as transitional wherever it appears.
Reference entry or context card: Belongs to the Glossary & Norms Space on regulation, norms and engineering. Entries here link to one only where a method is also an established tool of documentation or quality work, such as the five whys or a user’s mental model.

All context cards of the art of thinking