Modeling a satisficing judge

Abstract

Decision-makers often mean to react to the behavior of others, knowing that they only imperfectly observe them. Rational choice theory posits that they should weigh false positive versus false negative choices, and assess possible outcomes and their probabilities, if necessary, attaching subjective values to them. We argue that this recommendation is not only utterly unrealistic but highly error prone. We contrast it with an approach inspired by satisficing, where the decision-maker contents herself with gauging her confidence in not making too big a mistake by adopting one course of action. We model the competing approaches, using judicial decision-making as a graphic illustration.