Satisficers and Maximisers
Richard Chambers
In the good old days, you could go into your local grocery and have the
simple choice of buying either porridge or cornflakes for your morning
cereal. With increased prosperity, you have the choice of about 30 or 40 (my
estimate) different brands, ranging from the childish up to Organic Muesli
with freeze-dried raspberries and no added salt or sugar. There is something
about choosing a breakfast cereal in a supermarket that has the power to
send me into a deep trance. I stand oblivious, gazing at the different
brands, trying to make up my mind, while other shoppers and their trolleys
(=AmE shopping carts) try to politely squeeze past me in the aisle that I am
blocking. This mental state seems timeless, but I believe that I have
evidence that it might last for up to five minutes in my case.
I had another trance yesterday when I went into Leeds to buy some buttons to
replace a couple that had fallen off my trousers. Finding no exact match, I
had to find the best alternative in the circumstances. Standing in front of
rank upon rank of buttons, some of which might have been more satisfactory
than others, I went into a trance. When I eventually came round, I found a
middle-aged lady standing next to me, also in a button-trance. The condition
is a common one, affecting both male and female customers. The only
difference between the male and female lies in the type of product that will
induce the trance.
Yesterday's Times explains this phenomenon, by reporting the work of
Professor Barry Schwartz, an American psychologist. He has identified the
condition as "choice fatigue". He categorises shoppers as either
"maximisers" or "satisficers" (correctly spelt with the "c"). The satisficer
is satisfied by the first product that approximately meets his/her
requirements. Such a shopper will dash around the supermarket, picking up
the first pack of potatoes of the required weight, the first pack of sliced
white bread, etc. Such a person will be happy, because the potatoes are
potatoes, and the bread is bread. That is all the satisficer is interested
in.
This behaviour is contrasted with that of the maximise. This type of
shopper will feel every tomato to ensure that it is sufficiently firm, and
that each individual tomato is the very best of what is left on display.
Moving on to the potatoes, he/she will consider in great detail whether the
Whites are better than the Reds, whether Maris Piper might be better than
Estima, and whether the new potatoes might justify their extra cost. Such a
person should avoid at all costs the display of cereals.
The products that the maximiser takes home are objectively better than the
corresponding products taken home by the satisficer. However, this is not
how the maximiser perceives the situation. Maximisers are perpetually
dissatisfied because they always believe that they could have done even
better.
The conclusion seems to be that we were happier when we had less choice.
[Question. Is "satisficer" an established word, or was it coined
specifically for Prof Schwatz's study? Does the word have derivatives, such
as "satisficient"? What is the essential difference between "satisficer" and
"satisfier"?]
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
Michael Nitabach
news:xG4_b.18115$ft.165@newsfe1-win:
> Professor Barry Schwartz, an American psychologist...has
> identified the condition [of] "choice fatigue". He categorises
> shoppers as either "maximisers" or "satisficers" (correctly spelt
> with the "c"). The satisficer is satisfied by the first product
> that approximately meets his/her requirements. Such a shopper will
> dash around the supermarket, picking up the first pack of potatoes
> of the required weight, the first pack of sliced white bread, etc.
> Such a person will be happy, because the potatoes are potatoes,
> and the bread is bread. That is all the satisficer is interested
> in.
>
> This behaviour is contrasted with that of the maximise. This type
> of shopper will feel every tomato to ensure that it is
> sufficiently firm, and that each individual tomato is the very
> best of what is left on display. Moving on to the potatoes, he/she
> will consider in great detail whether the Whites are better than
> the Reds, whether Maris Piper might be better than Estima, and
> whether the new potatoes might justify their extra cost. Such a
> person should avoid at all costs the display of cereals.
>
> [Question. Is "satisficer" an established word, or was it coined
> specifically for Prof Schwatz's study? Does the word have
> derivatives, such as "satisficient"? What is the essential
> difference between "satisficer" and "satisfier"?]
"Satisficing" is a term from cybernetics and decision theory
described as follows in the "Web Dictionary of Cybernetics and
Systems":
"Satisficing is an alternative to optimization for cases where there
are MULTIPLE and COMPETITIVE objectiveS in which one gives up the
idea of obtaining a "best" solution. In this approach one sets lower
bounds for the various objectives that, if attained, will be "good
enough" and then seeks a solution that will exceed these bounds. The
satisficer's philosophy is that in real-world problems there are too
many uncertainties and conflicts in values for there to be any hope
of obtaining a true optimization and that it is far more sensible to
set out to do "well enough" (but better than has been done
previously). (IIASA)"
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASC/SATISFICING.html
I think it could be argued that satisficing is just another species
of true optimization, but where the cost of time, effort, and
resources to make a decision is factored in. In the example provided,
for example, the "satisficer" is really a "maximizer", but one for
whom minimizing the amount of time spent shopping is a heavily
weighted factor in his optimization.
--
Mike Nitabach
Jim Ward
> The conclusion seems to be that we were happier when we had less choice.
"Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it
is black." - Henry Ford on the Model T.
Raymond S. Wise
news:c1amqj$dv7$5...@news1.radix.net...
Hobson's choice in its earliest form must have simplified lives
somewhat--for Hobson, certainly. :-)
MWCD11 gives a later meaning, "2 : the necessity of accepting one of two or
more equally objectionable alternatives." If the choices are *truly* equally
objectionable alternatives, however, there is no real problem from the point
of view of making a decision: Just flip a coin, rule a die, or use some
other means to choose randomly from the alternatives.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Don Phillipson
news:Xns949775E622379m...@216.196.97.140...
> > [Question. Is "satisficer" an established word, or was it coined
> > specifically for Prof Schwatz's study? Does the word have
> > derivatives, such as "satisficient"? What is the essential
> > difference between "satisficer" and "satisfier"?]
>
> "Satisficing" is a term from cybernetics and decision theory
> described as follows in the "Web Dictionary of Cybernetics and
> Systems":
>
> "Satisficing is an alternative to optimization for cases where there
> are MULTIPLE and COMPETITIVE objectiveS in which one gives up the
> idea of obtaining a "best" solution. In this approach one sets lower
> bounds for the various objectives that, if attained, will be "good
> enough" and then seeks a solution that will exceed these bounds. The
It appears "satisficing" was coined by economist
Kenneth Boulding in approx. 1965. The phenomenon
is familiar, of "suboptimal" decision, i.e. choosing
something that gets the immediate job done, although
it may be the by no means the best or optimal tool
for the task. Common examples are the VHS
video recorder (inferior to Betamax), the Phillips
screwdriver (inferior to the Robertson) and perhaps
the QWERTY keyboard. Each of these became
a near-universal standard although obviously "suboptimal."
Boulding used "satisficing" to name the psychological
reasons suboptimal decisions are made (because
human decisions precede these "market choices.")
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada)
Ben Zimmer
>
> "Michael Nitabach" <mnit...@acedsl.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns949775E622379m...@216.196.97.140...
>
> > > [Question. Is "satisficer" an established word, or was it coined
> > > specifically for Prof Schwatz's study? Does the word have
> > > derivatives, such as "satisficient"? What is the essential
> > > difference between "satisficer" and "satisfier"?]
> >
> > "Satisficing" is a term from cybernetics and decision theory
> > described as follows in the "Web Dictionary of Cybernetics and
> > Systems":
> >
> > "Satisficing is an alternative to optimization for cases where there
> > are MULTIPLE and COMPETITIVE objectiveS in which one gives up the
> > idea of obtaining a "best" solution. In this approach one sets lower
> > bounds for the various objectives that, if attained, will be "good
> > enough" and then seeks a solution that will exceed these bounds. The
>
> It appears "satisficing" was coined by economist
> Kenneth Boulding in approx. 1965.
Actually, credit goes to the economist Herbert A. Simon, who used the
term as early as 1956:
1956 H. SIMON in Psychol. Rev. LXIII. 129/2 Evidently,
organisms adapt well enough to 'satisfice'; they do not,
in general, 'optimize'. Ibid. 136/1 A 'satisficing' path,
a path that will permit satisfaction at some specified
level of all its needs.
The full OED entry is given here (in a 2002 AUE thread on the term):
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3C50CEE5...@csse.monash.edu.au
John Dean
>
> "Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long
> as it is black." - Henry Ford on the Model T.
You have evidence that Henry actually said that? Please share it.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Tony Cooper
<john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
>Jim Ward wrote:
>>
>> "Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long
>> as it is black." - Henry Ford on the Model T.
>
>You have evidence that Henry actually said that? Please share it.
If it's not something he really said, I don't want to know. It's
widely attributed to him. He also allegedly ordered parts and
demanded that the suppliers provide them in specifically sized wooden
crates. The crates were taken apart and used for the floorboards of
the Model Ts. It's a good story, anyway.
Christopher Green
Good examples, except for the Phillips screwdriver. It is not inferior
to the Robertson or other designs for its designed purpose.
A Phillips screwdriver self-aligns easily when placed on the screw
head and cams out under excessive torque. Thus it is a more effective
design than the Robertson and others for at least two good reasons: to
assist in rapidly aligning tool with screw and to prevent manual
over-torquing of screws. It was selected over other designs including
the Robertson, in no small part for these reasons, by General Motors
for the 1936 Cadillac and has been standard in the U.S. automotive
industry since.
--
Chris Green
Charles Riggs
<john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
>Jim Ward wrote:
>>
>> "Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long
>> as it is black." - Henry Ford on the Model T.
>
>You have evidence that Henry actually said that? Please share it.
Omigod, Donna in drag. It is nice to think he said it. My father said
he said it. He said it.
--
Charles Riggs
My email address: chriggs/at/eircom/dot/net
Donna Richoux
And while people are rooting through Mr. Ford's biography, will they
please look for something he said about education and looking up stuff
when needed, rather than keeping it all in his head. I can't find it
(sorta ironic?). Thank you.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Jim Ward
> If it's not something he really said, I don't want to know. It's
> widely attributed to him. He also allegedly ordered parts and
> demanded that the suppliers provide them in specifically sized wooden
> crates. The crates were taken apart and used for the floorboards of
> the Model Ts. It's a good story, anyway.
I know that Kingsford charcoal came from Ford word scraps. Gulf used to
sell lighter fluid (back when it was Good).
Martin Ambuhl
> Jim Ward wrote:
>
>>"Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long
>> as it is black." - Henry Ford on the Model T.
>
>
> You have evidence that Henry actually said that? Please share it.
I think the earliest instance of the claim that he said it is in
Allen Nevins, _Ford_ (1957) vol II, ch 15
Jitze Couperus
wrote:
>
>And while people are rooting through Mr. Ford's biography, will they
>please look for something he said about education and looking up stuff
>when needed, rather than keeping it all in his head. I can't find it
>(sorta ironic?). Thank you.
>
Aaah - but... If somebody found the reference, that would be history.
And as we all know, Henry Ford said History is bunk.
So if you find a book that says he said it, then I sense a paradox
coming on.
Jitze
John Dean
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 10:18:02 +0100, tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux)
> wrote:
>
>>
>> And while people are rooting through Mr. Ford's biography, will they
>> please look for something he said about education and looking up
>> stuff when needed, rather than keeping it all in his head. I can't
>> find it (sorta ironic?). Thank you.
>>
>
> Aaah - but... If somebody found the reference, that would be history.
> And as we all know, Henry Ford said History is bunk.
Though if you track *that* one down you'll find 'History is *the* bunk' (my
emphasis)
--
John Dean
Oxford
Martin Ambuhl
Did he say "History is bunk?" Well, almost. The court record of the
Chicago Tribune libel case of 1919 records Ford as saying "History is
more or less bunk." His saying this was made popularly known by being
quoted by Samuel T. Williamson in the Saturday Review of January 22, 1955.