302 JONES I cannot do justice to the importance for other disciplines of Simon's "gloss"on bounded rationality.Just one note:The study of problem solving is grounded in the intended rationality of problem solvers,as is the study of judg- ment (Newell 1968,1990).By imposing a task environment,experimenters can examine that part of the problem solver's behavior that may be explained objectively,via the nature of the task environment,and compare it with that part that can be explained only with reference to failures to overcome system- atic internal limitations-bounded rationality showing through (Newell asn Simon 1972,Simon 1996b). The principle that rationality is intended but not always achieved,that what JO'SMOl "shows through"from the inner environment of the problem solver can be 2 systematically studied,is a principle that I consider extraordinarily useful in the study of human behavior in relatively set institutional task environments. BOUNDED RATIONALITY IN POLITICAL SCIENCE Bounded rationality has been a key component since the 1950s in public- administration and public-policy studies.In more recent times,partly in reac- tion to the attitudinal model of voting behavior,the approach has been used to understand political reasoning(Iyengar 1990,Sniderman et al 1991,Marcus McKuen 1993).Nevertheless,bounded rationality,born in organization the- ory(Simon 1947),has had its greatest impact in political science in the study of governmental organizations. 会 125-76 The fundamental premise underlying organizational studies in political science is that the behavior of organizations mimics the bounded rationality of the actors that inhabit them(March 1994).This correspondence is not simply 26661 an analogy among phenomena at different levels;the relationship is causal. This premise characterized behavioral organization theory generally,along with the insistence that organizational science be grounded in the observation of behavior in (and analysis of data from)organizational settings.The most important components of the political theory of organizations were the con- cepts of limited attention spans,habituation and routine,and organizational identification.Behavioral organization theory,unlike the subjective expected- utility approach,viewed uncertainty not as simple probabilities attached to specified outcomes,but as infecting the very specification of outcomes them- selves. B Over and over again,students of the behavior of public organizations reported findings that did not comport with the demands of"objective ration- ality"(Simon 1985:294).Search was incomplete,selective,and nonoptimal (Simon 1985,Jones Bachelor 1994).Decision makers did not need simply to choose among alternatives;they had to generate the alternatives in the first place(Simon 1983,1996b;Chisholm 1995).Problems were not givens;theyI cannot do justice to the importance for other disciplines of Simon’s “gloss” on bounded rationality. Just one note: The study of problem solving is grounded in the intended rationality of problem solvers, as is the study of judg￾ment (Newell 1968, 1990). By imposing a task environment, experimenters can examine that part of the problem solver’s behavior that may be explained objectively, via the nature of the task environment, and compare it with that part that can be explained only with reference to failures to overcome system￾atic internal limitations—bounded rationality showing through (Newell & Simon 1972, Simon 1996b). The principle that rationality is intended but not always achieved, that what “shows through” from the inner environment of the problem solver can be systematically studied, is a principle that I consider extraordinarily useful in the study of human behavior in relatively set institutional task environments. BOUNDED RATIONALITY IN POLITICAL SCIENCE Bounded rationality has been a key component since the 1950s in public￾administration and public-policy studies. In more recent times, partly in reac￾tion to the attitudinal model of voting behavior, the approach has been used to understand political reasoning (Iyengar 1990, Sniderman et al 1991, Marcus & McKuen 1993). Nevertheless, bounded rationality, born in organization the￾ory (Simon 1947), has had its greatest impact in political science in the study of governmental organizations. The fundamental premise underlying organizational studies in political science is that the behavior of organizations mimics the bounded rationality of the actors that inhabit them (March 1994). This correspondence is not simply an analogy among phenomena at different levels; the relationship is causal. This premise characterized behavioral organization theory generally, along with the insistence that organizational science be grounded in the observation of behavior in (and analysis of data from) organizational settings. The most important components of the political theory of organizations were the con￾cepts of limited attention spans, habituation and routine, and organizational identification. Behavioral organization theory, unlike the subjective expected￾utility approach, viewed uncertainty not as simple probabilities attached to specified outcomes, but as infecting the very specification of outcomes them￾selves. Over and over again, students of the behavior of public organizations reported findings that did not comport with the demands of “objective ration￾ality” (Simon 1985:294). Search was incomplete, selective, and nonoptimal (Simon 1985, Jones & Bachelor 1994). Decision makers did not need simply to choose among alternatives; they had to generate the alternatives in the first place (Simon 1983, 1996b; Chisholm 1995). Problems were not givens; they 302 JONES Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 1999.2:297-321. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON - HEALTH SCIENCES LIBRARIES on 09/25/06. For personal use only