Mar 01, 2007 One thing that I frequently touch on casually as I’m writing this blog is the distinction between continuous mathematics, and discrete mathematics.

• • • Rational choice theory, also known as choice theory or rational action theory, is a framework for understanding and often formally social and economic behavior. The basic premise of rational choice theory is that aggregate social behavior results from the behavior of individual actors, each of whom is making their individual decisions.

The theory also focuses on the determinants of the individual choices (). Rational choice theory then assumes that an individual has among the available choice alternatives that allow them to state which option they prefer. These preferences are assumed to be complete (the person can always say which of two alternatives they consider preferable or that neither is preferred to the other) and transitive (if option A is preferred over option B and option B is preferred over option C, then A is preferred over C). The is assumed to take account of available information, probabilities of events, and potential costs and benefits in determining preferences, and to act consistently in choosing the self-determined best choice of action. Rationality is widely used as an assumption of the behavior of individuals in models and analyses and appears in almost all economics textbook treatments of human decision-making. It is also used in,, and.

A particular version of rationality is, which involves seeking the most cost-effective means to achieve a specific goal without reflecting on the worthiness of that goal. Was an early proponent of applying rational actor models more widely. Teaching Middle Years Pendergast Ebook Login. Becker won the 1992 for his studies of discrimination, crime, and. Contents • • • • • • • • • • • • Definition and scope [ ] The concept of rationality used in rational choice theory is different from the colloquial and most philosophical use of the word. Colloquially, 'rational' behaviour typically means 'sensible', 'predictable', or 'in a thoughtful, clear-headed manner.' Rational choice theory uses a narrower definition of rationality.

At its most basic level, behavior is rational if it is goal-oriented, reflective (evaluative), and consistent (across time and different choice situations). This contrasts with behavior that is,,, or adopted by (unevaluative). [ ] Early writing about rational choice, including, assumed that agents make consumption choices so as to maximize their,. Contemporary theory bases rational choice on a set of choice axioms that need to be satisfied, and typically does not specify where the goal (preferences, desires) comes from.

It mandates just a consistent ranking of the alternatives.: 501 Individuals choose the best action according to their personal preferences and the constraints facing them. E.g., there is nothing irrational in preferring fish to meat the first time, but there is something irrational in preferring fish to meat in one instant and preferring meat to fish in another, without anything else having changed. Rational choice theorists do not claim that the theory describes the choice process, but rather that it predicts the outcome and pattern of choices. An assumption often added to the rational choice paradigm is that individual preferences are self-interested, in which case the individual can be referred to as a. Such an individual acts as if balancing costs against benefits to arrive at action that maximizes personal advantage.

Proponents of such models, particularly those associated with the, do not claim that a model's assumptions are an accurate description of reality, only that they help formulate clear and falsifiable hypotheses. [ ] In this view, the only way to judge the success of a hypothesis is. To use an example from, if a theory that says that the behavior of the leaves of a tree is explained by their rationality passes the empirical test, it is seen as successful. Without specifying the individual's goal or preferences it may not be possible to empirically test, or falsify, the rationality assumption.

Statistics Fiu Custom Edition By James Mcclave And Terry Sincich. However, the predictions made by a specific version of the theory are testable. In recent years, the most prevalent version of rational choice theory,, has been challenged by the experimental results of. Economists are learning from other fields, such as, and are enriching their theories of choice in order to get a more accurate view of human decision-making. For example, the behavioral economist and experimental psychologist won the in 2002 for his work in this field.

Rational choice theory has become increasingly employed in other than, such as, and in recent decades. It has had far-reaching impacts on the study of, especially in fields like the study of interest groups,, behaviour in legislatures, coalitions, and. In these fields, the use of the rational choice paradigm to explain broad social phenomena is the subject of active controversy.

Actions, assumptions, and individual preferences [ ] The premise of rational choice theory as a social science methodology is that the aggregate behavior in society reflects the sum of the choices made by individuals. Each individual, in turn, makes their choice based on their own preferences and the constraints (or choice set) they face. At the individual level, rational choice theory stipulates that the agent chooses the action (or outcome) they most prefer.

In the case where actions (or outcomes) can be evaluated in terms of costs and benefits, a rational individual chooses the action (or outcome) that provides the maximum net benefit, i.e., the maximum benefit minus cost.

In their survey of empirical research based on rational choice theory, Don Green and Ian Shapiro point to a list of methodological deficiencies or “pathologies.” The main problem with Green and Shapiro's list lies in the standards they use to evaluate the achievements of rational choice theory. These standards are derived from a view of empirical research that is deeply questionable and, in the stated form, inconsistent with both standard insights in contemporary philosophy of science and the established practice in the most successful empirical sciences.