Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-t6st2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-27T18:54:29.036Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Satisficing as an alternative to optimality and suboptimality in perceptual decision making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2019

Antonio Mastrogiorgio Open the ORCID record for Antonio Mastrogiorgio [Opens in a new window]  and
Enrico Petracca Open the ORCID record for Enrico Petracca [Opens in a new window]
Antonio Mastrogiorgio
Affiliation:
Department of Neurosciences, Imaging and Clinical Sciences & CeSI-MeT, University of Chieti-Pescara, 66100 Chieti Scalo (CH), Italy. mastrogiorgio.antonio@gmail.com
Enrico Petracca
Affiliation:
Department of Economics (IRENE), University of Neuchâtel, 2000 Neuchâtel, Switzerland School of Economics, Management and Statistics, University of Bologna, 40126 Bologna, Italy. enrico.petracca2@unibo.ithttps://sites.google.com/site/embodiedrationality/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Rahnev & Denison's (R&D) critique of optimality in perceptual decision making leads either to implicitly retaining optimality as a normative benchmark or disregarding the normative approach altogether. We suggest that “bounded rationality,” and particularly the “satisficing” criterion, would help dispense with optimality while salvaging normativity. We also suggest that satisficing would provide a parsimonious and robust explanation for perceptual behavior.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 41 , 2018 , e235
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bogacz, R. (2007) Optimal decision-making theories: Linking neurobiology with behaviour. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11(3):118–25. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661307000290.Google Scholar
Bogacz, R., Hu, P. T., Holmes, P. J. & Cohen, J. D. (2010) Do humans produce the speed-accuracy trade-off that maximizes reward rate? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 63(5):863–91. Available at: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2908414&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. (2004) Striking a blow for sanity in theories of rationality. In: Models of a man: Essays in the memory of Herbert A. Simon, ed. Augier, M. & March, J. G., pp. 389–409. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. & Selten, R., eds. (2001) Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M. & the ABC Research Group. (1999) Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hands, D. W. (2014) Normative ecological rationality: Normative rationality in the fast-and-frugal-heuristics research program. Journal of Economic Methodology 21(4):396–410.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–92. Retrieved March 11, 2017. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1914185?origin=crossref.Google Scholar
Martignon, L. & Hoffrage, U. (2002) Fast, frugal, and fit: Simple heuristics for paired comparison. Theory and Decision 52(1):29–71.Google Scholar
Ratcliff, R. & McKoon, G. (2008) The diffusion decision model: Theory and data for two-choice decision tasks. Neural Computation 20(4):873–922.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1955) A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics 69(1):99–118.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1956) Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review 63(2):129–38.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1996) The sciences of the artificial, 3rd edition. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Todd, P. M. & Gigerenzer, G. (2003) Bounding rationality to the world. Journal of Economic Psychology 24(2):143–65.Google Scholar