cognitive psychology
Satisficing
What is satisficing?
Satisficing is choosing the first option that's good enough rather than searching for the best one. Instead of weighing everything to maximise, people set a rough bar and take the first thing that clears it - which is usually the smart move, because the effort of finding the perfect choice rarely pays for itself.
Also known as: satisficing, good enough decision making, satisfice
Prefer to watch?
Watch the recap 0:50
The demo
Your task: book a hotel that's good enough - at least 4 stars, under £100. Scan the list and click the first one you'd happily book. Don't overthink it.
What this demo shows (text version)
You're asked to book a hotel that meets a simple bar - at least four stars and under £100 - and to click the first one you'd happily book. Most people scan down, stop at the first listing that clears the bar, and book it, without comparing every option. The demo then points out that a marginally better choice sat lower in the list, which you never reached because you'd already found one that was good enough.
That's satisficing: people take the first option that meets their bar rather than searching for the best, which is usually a sensible use of limited time and attention. The design implication is to make a genuinely good option the first acceptable one people encounter - through ordering, scannable labels and fewer choices - because that early "good enough" is the one they'll take.
People don't optimise; they take the first option that meets their bar and move on. On a page, that means they click the first link, result or product that looks good enough - not the best one, and rarely after reading everything. So your job isn't to present the perfect option somewhere on the page; it's to make a genuinely good option the first acceptable one people hit. Order, label and surface so the first "good enough" they encounter is actually a good choice, because that's the one they'll take.
You didn't scan every option and rank them - you stopped at the first one that cleared your bar and went with it, even though a marginally better one sat lower down. That's satisficing, and it's not laziness; it's a sensible shortcut. The design lesson is simple: people take the first good-enough option, so make sure the first good-enough option is a good one.
The term (a blend of "satisfy" and "suffice") comes from Herbert Simon's bounded rationality: real people have limited time, attention and information, so rather than maximise they set an aspiration level and accept the first option that meets it. This is often genuinely optimal once you count the cost of searching - exhaustively comparing everything would waste more than it saves.
On the web, satisficing is the default behaviour Steve Krug described: users don't read pages, they scan; they don't choose the best link, they pick the first reasonable one and click. They satisfice on content, on navigation choices and on which result to open, backing out only if the option turns out to fail their bar. Designing as if people will carefully weigh all options is designing for a user who doesn't exist.
Work with it rather than against it. Front-load strong options, write scannable labels and headings so "good enough" is easy to spot quickly, and order results and choices so an early one is genuinely good. Reduce the number of options so the bar is easier to clear without overwhelm, and make it cheap to back out when a satisficed choice doesn't pan out.