IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ratsoc/v32y2020i4p485-508.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The pulse-like nature of decisions in rational choice theory

Author

Listed:
  • Enzo Lenine

Abstract

Is the act of making a decision a process or pulse? Critiques of rational choice theory and models often treat cognitive processes of preference ordering as part of the act of decision that should be incorporated into the models. The failure to account for human psychology, they argue, responds for RCT’s lack of predictability. However, this argument and the models of human mind, such as prospect theory, see decision as a process that begins at the cognitive considerations of preference ordering and extends up to the act of decision. In this paper, I argue that decision is analogous to a pulse rather than a process. I draw this analogy with the Dirac delta function, which in signal theory represents an unitary pulse. In the exact moment of making a decision, all preferences and contextual evaluations must have been already structured in the agent’s mind, otherwise she would not be capable of making the decision. Acknowledging the pulse-like nature of rational choice models allows modellers to eschew the incorporation of complex cognitive processes into their analyses, which has both theoretical and empirical implications to RCT’s representation of real-world phenomena.

Suggested Citation

  • Enzo Lenine, 2020. "The pulse-like nature of decisions in rational choice theory," Rationality and Society, , vol. 32(4), pages 485-508, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:ratsoc:v:32:y:2020:i:4:p:485-508
    DOI: 10.1177/1043463120961578
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1043463120961578
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1043463120961578?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Menno Rol, 2013. "Reply to Julian Reiss," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 244-249, September.
    2. Curtis S. Signorino & Kuzey Yilmaz, 2003. "Strategic Misspecification in Regression Models," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(3), pages 551-566, July.
    3. Amartya Sen, 1997. "Maximization and the Act of Choice," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(4), pages 745-780, July.
    4. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1991. "Comments on the Interpretation of Game Theory," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(4), pages 909-924, July.
    5. Stephen Quackenbush, 2004. "The Rationality of Rational Choice Theory," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(2), pages 87-107, April.
    6. Stephanie Rosenkranz & Patrick W. Schmitz, 2007. "Reserve Prices in Auctions as Reference Points," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(520), pages 637-653, April.
    7. Shlomo Benartzi & Richard H. Thaler, 1995. "Myopic Loss Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(1), pages 73-92.
    8. Julian Reiss, 2013. "The explanation paradox redux," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 280-292, September.
    9. Armen A. Alchian, 1950. "Uncertainty, Evolution, and Economic Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58, pages 211-211.
    10. Gintis, Herbert, 2000. "Beyond Homo economicus: evidence from experimental economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 311-322, December.
    11. Brad R. Taylor, 2020. "The psychological foundations of rational ignorance: biased heuristics and decision costs," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 70-88, March.
    12. Grether, David M & Plott, Charles R, 1979. "Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(4), pages 623-638, September.
    13. E. Ostrom, 2010. "A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action Presidential Address, American political Science Association, 1997," Public administration issues, Higher School of Economics, issue 1, pages 5-52.
    14. Gintis, Herbert & Helbing, Dirk, 2015. "Homo Socialis: An Analytical Core for Sociological Theory," Review of Behavioral Economics, now publishers, vol. 2(1-2), pages 1-59, July.
    15. Anthony Downs, 1957. "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65, pages 135-135.
    16. Signorino, Curtis S., 2003. "Structure and Uncertainty in Discrete Choice Models," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(4), pages 316-344.
    17. Geoffrey M Hodgson, 2012. "On the Limits of Rational Choice Theory," Economic Thought, World Economics Association, vol. 1(1), pages 1-5, July.
    18. Stigler, George J & Becker, Gary S, 1977. "De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(2), pages 76-90, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Abraham Yeboah & Nana Owusu-Frimpong & Ofosu Agyekum & Vida Owusu-Prempeh, 2023. "Measuring situational factors in theory of attribution to consumer attitudes towards unlawful disposal of solid waste products in Ghana with special reference to Sunyani: a mediation and moderation an," Future Business Journal, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 1-21, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jacobs Martin, 2016. "Accounting for Changing Tastes: Approaches to Explaining Unstable Individual Preferences," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 67(2), pages 121-183, August.
    2. Enzo Lenine, 2020. "Modelling Coalitions: From Concept Formation to Tailoring Empirical Explanations," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-12, November.
    3. Cherry, Todd L. & Crocker, Thomas D. & Shogren, Jason F., 2003. "Rationality spillovers," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 63-84, January.
    4. Krstic, Bojan & Krstic, Milos, 2015. "Models Of Irrational Behaviour Of Household And Firm," Ekonomika, Journal for Economic Theory and Practice and Social Issues, Society of Economists Ekonomika, Nis, Serbia, vol. 61(4), pages 1-10, December.
    5. Fellner, Gerlinde & Maciejovsky, Boris, 2007. "Risk attitude and market behavior: Evidence from experimental asset markets," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 338-350, June.
    6. Gordon Burt, 1997. "Cultural Convergence in Historical Cultural Space-Time," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 21(4), pages 291-305, December.
    7. Häckel, Björn & Pfosser, Stefan & Tränkler, Timm, 2017. "Explaining the energy efficiency gap - Expected Utility Theory versus Cumulative Prospect Theory," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 414-426.
    8. Kathryn Graddy & Lara Loewenstein & Jianping Mei & Mike Moses & Rachel A. J. Pownall, 2023. "Empirical evidence of anchoring and loss aversion from art auctions," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 47(2), pages 279-301, June.
    9. Jimena Hurtado, 2005. "The Utilitarian Foundations Of The Economic Approach To Human Behavior," Documentos CEDE 3633, Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Economía, CEDE.
    10. Venkatachalam, L., 2008. "Behavioral economics for environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 640-645, November.
    11. Randall G. Holcombe, 2020. "Progressive Democracy: the ideology of the modern predatory state," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 182(3), pages 287-301, March.
    12. Berg, Nathan & Biele, Guido & Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2010. "Does consistency predict accuracy of beliefs?: Economists surveyed about PSA," MPRA Paper 26590, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Samir Mamadehussene & Francesco Sguera, 2023. "On the Reliability of the BDM Mechanism," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(2), pages 1166-1179, February.
    14. Cyril Hédoin, 2017. "Normative economics and paternalism: the problem with the preference-satisfaction account of welfare," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 286-310, September.
    15. Ingela Alger & Jean-François Laslier, 2022. "Homo moralis goes to the voting booth: Coordination and information aggregation," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 34(2), pages 280-312, April.
    16. Markus Pasche, 2002. "Playing Fair: Rationality and Norm-guided Behavior in Games," Working Paper Series B 2002-02, Friedrich Schiller University of Jena, School of of Economics and Business Administration.
    17. Muhammet A. Bas, 2012. "Measuring Uncertainty in International Relations: Heteroskedastic Strategic Models," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(5), pages 490-520, November.
    18. Bruno S. Frey & Reiner Eichenberger, 1989. "Should Social Scientists Care about Choice Anomalies?," Rationality and Society, , vol. 1(1), pages 101-122, July.
    19. Norman Frohlich & Joe Oppenheimer & Pat Bond & Irvin Boschman, 1984. "Beyond Economic Man," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 28(1), pages 3-24, March.
    20. Charles Plott, 2014. "Public choice and the development of modern laboratory experimental methods in economics and political science," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 331-353, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:ratsoc:v:32:y:2020:i:4:p:485-508. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.