Rational choice theory – alternatives and criticisms

Abstract

The core premise of rational choice theory includes the following assumptions: (A1) behavior can be explained as a choice between alternatives; (A2) actors’ preferences, beliefs and constraints are the main determinants of behavior; (A3) preferences must meet conditions such as: completeness and transitivity; and (A4) individuals choose the optimal alternatives, given their preferences, beliefs, and constraints. However, the application of rational choice theory to a growing number of research areas has clearly demonstrated the empirical inadequacy of this set of restrictive premises, leading proponents of rational choice theory to adopt a broader version that rejects assumption (A4) and allows for a wider range of preferences. Along with this metatheoretical reaction, another group of scientists proposes a more fundamental “overhaul” meaning that scientists go beyond explaining the rational behavior of actors based on profit maximization. There are two main goals of this paper. One is to contribute to the understanding of new concepts, models and theories of human behavior (the concept of rule-following behavior, rational-heuristic model, Elster’s variant of rational choice theory and models of ecological rationality). The second goal is to, based on a comprehensive analysis of the content of alternative theoretical conceptions of rational human behavior, make recommendations for improving this theory.