EconLearn

Bounded Rationality vs Satisficing

Bounded Rationality and Satisficing are two Behavioral Economics concepts in AP Economics that students often mix up. Bounded rationality is the idea that people make reasonable decisions within the limits of their information, time, and mental capacity. Satisficing is searching until you find an option that clears a good-enough standard, then stopping, instead of comparing every option to find the best. Here is how they compare side by side.

Bounded Rationality

Rather than optimizing perfectly, people 'satisfice', they pick a good-enough option given real constraints. The concept, from Herbert Simon, explains why actual choices fall short of the textbook rational ideal.

Satisficing

The word blends satisfy and suffice, and it comes from Herbert Simon's account of bounded rationality. A satisficer sets an aspiration level, the minimum an option must meet, then takes the first option that clears it. This is often the smarter policy, because searching costs time and attention: checking every apartment in a city to find the perfect one can cost more than the improvement is worth. Aspiration levels adjust with experience, rising after easy successes and falling after a run of rejections, which is how job seekers and home buyers revise what they will accept. Satisficing is a specific search rule you can watch someone follow, while bounded rationality is the broader claim about limited information, time and computing power that makes such rules sensible.

Bounded Rationality vs Satisficing: The Limit and the Rule It Produces

Bounded RationalitySatisficing
What it isA claim about the limits people decide withinA specific decision rule people use
Question it answersWhy do people not optimise?What do they do instead?
What it points atLimited information, limited time, limited attentionA threshold that an option has to clear
When the search stopsThe idea itself does not sayAt the first option that is good enough
What it replacesThe assumption of full rationalityMaximising, swapped for a stopping rule
What it says about the outcomeNothing on its own about how good the choice isThe choice clears the bar but may not be the best one available

Bounded rationality states the constraint; satisficing is one way of living with it

Herbert Simon introduced both terms, and they answer two different questions. Bounded rationality says a decision maker cannot gather every fact, hold every option in mind or calculate the best answer, so the model of a perfect optimiser is the wrong description of a real person. That is a claim about the constraint. It does not say what people do about it. Satisficing is one answer: set a standard of what would be acceptable, search until something clears it, then stop. The bar is doing the work that a full comparison would otherwise do, and it converts an impossible problem into a manageable one. Keeping them apart is worth marks. Bounded rationality is the premise and satisficing is one behaviour that follows from it. Others follow too, such as copying what similar people chose, using a rule of thumb, or handing the decision to somebody else. It also helps to see what bounded rationality is not. It does not say people are foolish or driven by feeling. It says they are reasonable inside limits that the textbook optimiser at /micro/consumer-choice does not face, which is a different criticism from the one biases make.

Search is itself costly, which is what makes good enough a defensible answer

Put numbers on a flat hunt, all illustrative. Forty places are available, viewing each takes an hour, and the searcher values an hour at 25 dollars. The rule is to take the first flat under 1,500 dollars a month with a short commute. Suppose one flat in five clears that bar, so roughly five viewings are needed, costing 5 times 25, or 125 dollars of time. Viewing all forty costs 40 times 25, which is 1,000 dollars of time. If the best flat that exhaustive search turns up is 10 dollars a month cheaper than the first acceptable one, a year in it saves 12 times 10, or 120 dollars, against 875 dollars of extra searching. The thorough method loses. This is why satisficing is not a confession of laziness. Once search is counted as a real cost, stopping early can be the better decision by the optimiser's own standard. The place it goes wrong is when the bar is set badly, either so high that search never ends or so low that the first thing seen wins, and when the order options arrive in decides the outcome, which is where /glossary/behavioral-economics starts asking who arranged that order.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between bounded rationality and satisficing?

Bounded rationality is the general claim that people decide within limits of information, time and mental capacity, while satisficing is one specific rule they use, namely searching until an option clears a good-enough standard and then stopping. The first names the constraint and the second names a response to it.

Is satisficing irrational?

No, and it can be the better choice once the cost of searching is counted. Comparing every option takes time that has value, so stopping at the first acceptable option often leaves a person better off overall than an exhaustive search that finds a slightly superior answer far too slowly.

Who came up with bounded rationality?

Herbert Simon, who also introduced satisficing as the decision rule that goes with it. His argument was that real decision makers face limits on information and computation that the perfectly rational agent of standard theory does not, so a realistic model has to describe how they cope.

Get AP Econ exam tips in your inbox

Occasional emails with study tips, new interactive graphs, and exam-season reminders. Free, no spam.

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. Read our privacy policy.

Keep track of what you have studied

A free EconLearn account adds progress tracking, your quiz history, and achievements. Studying here is free either way, and there is nothing to pay for as a student.

Create a free account

Already have one? Sign in

Last updated

← Back to the glossary
AP® is a trademark registered by the College Board, which is not affiliated with, and does not endorse, EconLearn.