Treating Rationality as a Continuous Variable

Abstract

Granted, Behavioral Economics has demonstrated that “people” (implying all) are unable to act as strong definitions of rationality assume. Their cognitive limitations are “hard wired”. However Behavioral Economics’ own data show that important segments of the population find “the” rational answer to choices posed to them. How do these findings square with the thesis that limitations are hard wired and universal? And, more attention should be paid to the extent to which various people deviate from the rational choice, and—whether training can improve performance despite the claim that flaws are hard wired.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    “There is simply too much credible experimental evidence that individuals frequently act in ways that are incompatible with the assumptions of rational choice theory.”

  2. 2.

    One of the two “relatively recent challenges to the neoclassical orthodoxy” that has “taken hold of a non-negligible minority of the profession” is behavioral economics. In some cases, neoclassical economics has fought back by citing evidence that behavioral economics only provides a good model for inexperienced consumers and investors.

  3. 3.

    “Instead of trying to fix the hardwired errors of individual cognition, organizations should focus on managing the psychological architecture of the choice environment.”

  4. 4.

    Zarri (2010) holds that one of the two major groups of behavioral economists is primarily concerned with the discussion and documentation of “major cognitive limitations and systematic biases in decision making.”

  5. 5.

    “Psychology offers integrative concepts and mid-level generalizations, which gain credibility from their ability to explain ostensibly different phenomena in diverse domains.”

  6. 6.

    “Almost all economic models assume that all people are exclusively pursuing their material self-interest…”

  7. 7.

    47 of 93 students in the Princeton sample and 164/293 in the University of Michigan sample gave the wrong answer.

  8. 8.

    Russell B. Korobkin and Thomas S. Ulen acknowledge the fallaciousness of this dichotomy. “To claim that rational choice theory is an insufficient behavioral model on which to base legal policy is not to argue that individuals behave irrationally (although they certainly do in some circumstances). Rather, it is to assert that legal scholars seeking to understand the incentive effects of law in order to propose efficacious legal policy should not be limited to rational choice theory.”

  9. 9.

    47 of 93 students in the Princeton sample and 164/293 in the University of Michigan sample gave the wrong answer. With payoffs.

  10. 10.

    The study had several limitations, but the general findings of the report were widely circulated in the British media.

Further Reading

  1. Begley, C. G. & Ellis, L. M. 2012. Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature, 483, 531–533.

  2. Bishop, R. C. & Heberlein, T. A. 1979. Measuring Values of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased? American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61.5, 926–930.

  3. Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. 1996. Are human beings good intuitive statisticians after all? Rethinking some conclusions from the literature on judgment under uncertainty. Cognition, 58(1), 1–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. 1968. Bystander Intervention in Emergencies: Diffusion of Responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4), 377–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Davis, J. B. 2006. The turn in economics: neoclassical dominance to mainstream pluralism? Journal of Institutional Economics, 2(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. 1999. A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 817–868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fontana, M. 2010. Can neoclassical economics handle complexity? The fallacy of the oil spot dynamic. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 76(3), 584–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Forbes, D. P. 2005. Are some entrepreneurs more overconfident than others? Journal of Business Venturing, 20(5), 623–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Frick, B. 2010. How to Outsmart your Biases. Washington Post, September 25.

  10. Holden, S., Brady, P., & Hadley, M. 2006. 401(k) Plans: A 25-Year Retrospective. Investment Company Institute Research Perspective, 12(2), 1–40. Retrieved from http://www.ici.org/pdf/per12-02.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hursh, S. R., & Roma, P. G. 2013. Behavioral Economics and Empirical Public Policy. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 99(1), 98–124.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Jolls, Christine, & Sunstein, Cass R. 2004. Debiasing Through Law. Working Paper. Retrieved from http://www.ftc.gov/be/seminardocs/04sunstein.pdf.

  13. Jolls, C., Sunstein, C., & Thaler, R. 1998. A Behavioral Approach to Law and Economics. Stanford Law Review, 50(5), 1471–1548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kahneman, D. 2003. Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics. The American Economic Review, 93(5), 1449–1475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Daniel Kahneman, personal email to the author.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kahneman, Daniel. 2010. The riddle of experience vs. memory. Palm Springs, FL. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_kahneman_the_riddle_of_experience_vs_memory.html.

  17. Kaplan, J., & Du, J. 2009. Question Format and Representation: Do Heuristics and Biases Apply to Statistics Students? Statistics Education Research Journal, 8(2), 56–73.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Korobkin, R. B., & Ulen, T. S. 2000. Law and Behavioral Science: Removing the Rationality Assumption from Law and Economics. California Law Review, 88(4), 1051–1144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. List, J. A. 2004. Neoclassical theory versus prospect theory: Evidence from the marketplace. Econometrica, 72(2), 615–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. 2001. Risk as Feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 267–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. 1979. Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098–2109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Madrian, B. C. & Shea, D. F. 2000. The Power of Suggestion: Inertia in 401 (K) Participation and Saving Behavior. National Bureau of Economic Research.

  23. Mueller, D. C. 2004. Models of man: neoclassical, behavioural, and evolutionary. Politics, Philosophy and Economics, 3(1), 59–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Nisbett, R. E., & Borgida, E. 1975. Attribution and the Psychology of Prediction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(5), 932–943.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Pesendorfer, W. 2006. Behavioral Economics Comes of Age: A Review Essay on Advances in Behavioral Economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 44(3), 712–721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Powell, T. C., Lovallo, D., & Fox, C. R. 2011. Behavioural Strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 32(13), 1369–1386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Rabipour, S., & Raz, A. 2012. Training the brain: Fact and fad in cognitive and behavioural remediation. Brain and Cognition, 79(2), 159–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ricciardi, V., & Simon, H. K. 2000. What is Behavioral Finance? Business, Education, and Technology Journal, 2(2), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Robinson, L. A., & Hammitt, J. K. 2011. Behavioral Economics and Regulatory Analysis. Risk Analysis, 31(9), 1408–1422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rockford, Marv, & Gray, Steve. 2012.How could they be so stupid? What were they thinking? The Business Journals. Retrieved from http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/how-to/marketing/2012/11/how-could-they-be-so-stupid-what-were.html?page=all.

  31. Schmidt, K. M., & Fehr, E. 1999. A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 817–868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Schwartz, H. 2008. A Guide to Behavioral Economics (pp. 998–999). Falls Church: Higher Education Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Seymour, B., & Dolan, R. 2008. Emotion, Decision Making, and the Amygdala. Neuron, 58(5), 662–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Spiegel, Alix. 2009.Using Psychology To Save You From Yourself. NPR. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104803094.

  35. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. 1998. Individual Differences in Rational Thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 127(2), 161–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Stojanovic, B. 2013. The Riddle of Thinking: Thinking, Fast and Slow. Panoeconomicus, 2013(4), 569–576.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Sunstein, C. R. 2013. The Storrs Lectures: Behavioral Economics and Paternalism. Yale Law Journal, 122(7), 1826–1899.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Thaler, R. H. 2008. Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 27(1), 15–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Thaler, R. H. 1980. Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1(1), 39–60.

  40. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. 2008. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness (pp. 108–109). New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Thaler, R. H., Sunstein, Cass R., & Balz, John P. 2010. Choice Architecture. University of Chicago Booth School of Business Working Paper.

  42. The Economist. 2013. How science goes wrong. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong.

  43. Trout, J. D. 2005. Paternalism and cognitive bias. Law and Philosophy, 24(4), 393–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. 1981. The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. 1992. Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Tversky, A., Slovic, P., & Kahneman, D. 1990. The Causes of Preference Reversal. The American Economic Review, 80(1), 204–217.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Vis, B. 2011. Prospect Theory and Political Decision Making. Political Studies Review, 9(3), 334–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Young, B. 2011. The Invisible Gorilla. Dental Products Report, 45(4).

  49. Zarri, L. 2010. Behavioral economics has two ‘souls’: Do they both depart from economic rationality? The Journal of Socio-Economics, 39(5), 562–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amitai Etzioni.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Etzioni, A. Treating Rationality as a Continuous Variable. Soc 51, 393–400 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-014-9798-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Behavioral economics
  • Rationality
  • Training
  • Methodology