When we design web pages, we often assume users will carefully scan through all the available options and meticulously choose the best one. However, the reality is quite different. More often than not, we tend to opt for the first satisfactory option we come across, a phenomenon referred to as satisficing. This behavior has been something I observed for years, but its true significance became vividly clear to me after delving into Gary Klein's book, "Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions."
Klein's extensive research into naturalistic decision-making, where he studied professionals like firefighters, pilots, chessmasters, and nuclear power plant operators, shed light on how high-stakes decisions are made in real settings. These scenarios often involve time pressure, vague goals, limited information, and changing conditions.
In a particular study focusing on field commanders at fire scenes, Klein's team initially approached the research with the widely accepted model of rational decision-making. This model suggests that when faced with a problem, individuals gather information, identify possible solutions, and then choose the best one. However, their assumption, given the high stakes and time pressure, was that fire captains would likely only be able to compare two options, which they thought was a conservative estimate.
Surprisingly, the findings revealed that the fire commanders didn't engage in a comprehensive comparison of options. Instead, they swiftly embraced the first reasonable plan that came to mind and performed a quick mental check for potential issues. If no problems were identified, they proceeded with that plan of action. This approach emphasized the practical tendency to satisfice rather than exhaustively analyze options, particularly in situations demanding rapid decision-making.
Top comments (0)