Is The Rational Actor Hypothesis Used Throughout The Social Sciences?

The Rational Actor Model works in several ways. When it comes to the level of analysis for RAM, it’s involved with a unitary actor treating the state as a single entity and strategic context (Yetiv, 5). The goals or results of the Rational Actor Model are to maximize perceived national interests. Finally, the decision-making mode for the Rational Actor Model is the cost and benefit analysis. Overall, we need an individual who wants to maximize their nation’s interests, while looking at the costs and benefits of the decision maker’s actions.

The ultimate game is a very interesting probe of our assumptions about the way people make economic transactions. The ultimatum game is a game in economic experiments. The first player (the proposer) receives a sum of money and proposes how to divide the sum between the proposer and the other player. The second player (the responder) chooses to either accept or reject this

This is modeled by the fact that people being in groups, causes them to act and think differently than they would have if they had been alone. In her essay, Tavris uses many examples of this: In the case of Kitty Genovese or the late Rodney King who was beat to death by police officers. People have a tendency to act differently in groups, others suffer due to people not wanting to “rock the boat” or they do not want to “embarrass themselves or others if they are wrong” (19). Tavris offers a solution to the way people act in groups, “By understanding the impulse to diffuse responsibility, perhaps as individuals we will be more likely to act. By understanding the social pressures that reward group-think, loyalty and obedience, we can foster those that reward whistle blowing and moral courage. And, as a society, we can reinforce the belief that they also sing who stand and watch” (19). If civilization can solve the dilemma of people acting differently when they are in groups with others, the world could be a much improved place.

My example of the rational choice theory of today is the mexican drug controls of December 2011. The drug trafficking organization in Mexico was highly rational, self-interested actors seeked to maximize profit.

Rational choice theory is a criminology theory designed by Derek Cornish and Ronald Clark which states that before people commit a crime they think about what they are going to do (Snook, Dhami, & Kavanagh, 2011). They consider the pros and cons before performing the criminal action. The entire premise of the rational choice theory is that each individual, regardless of whether rich, poor, educated, or uneducated, all utilize rationality when making the decision to commit a crime (Taylor, 2013). The rational choice theory postulates that when a person weighs the costs and benefits of a crime, that person decides whether or not the benefits are worth the risk. It is about maximizing his or her own self-interest (Jacques & Wright, 2010). The

At the heart of his theory was the idea that people acted to maximize their rewards in their social action.

Rational choice theories are among the fastest growing theories in social science today. Many sociologists and political scientists defend the claim that rational choice theory can provide the basis for a unified and comprehensive theory of social behavior. What distinguishes rational choice theory from other forms of theory is that it denies the existence of any kinds of action other than the purely rational and calculative. All social action can be seen as rationally motivated, as instrumental action, however much of it may appear to be irrational or non-rational. I believe that the Rational Choice Theory would be most beneficial in the reduction or control of crime.

“Groupthink being a coinage - and, admittedly, a loaded one - a working definition is in order. We are not talking about mere instinctive conformity - it is, after all, a perennial failing of mankind. What we are talking about is a rationalized conformity - an open, articulate philosophy which holds that group values are not only expedient but right and good as well (p. 114).”

10.When economists assume that people are rational and respond to incentives, they meanA) people act with kindness.B) people are altruistic.C) people act in their own self-interest.D) people are selfish.Points Earned: 0.4/0.4Correct Answer(s): C

This week’s reading Predictably Irrational was very valuable, and informative. While coming up with so many ways of thinking when it comes to behavior, I had no idea even existed. We talked last week about being rational, but this week and this week’s reading it discussed more about irrational, and predictable behavior. At the end of this summary I hope to have showed and understand the difference when it comes to irrational and predictable theories that can disrupt behavior, and decision making.

Groupthink theory often occurs without the group’s realization. Irving Janis formed 8 different symptoms that indicate groupthink. The first of these symptoms is illusions of vulnerability. This occurs when members of the group are overly optimistic and believe that nothing negative will arise from their decision. Janis describes it as taking great risks and acquiring the attitude of “everything is going to be OK, because we are a special group”. Secondly we have belief in inherent morality. This symptom is characterized as the groups thought that they could do no wrong. They believe that they have high morality, that they are right in all situations and they ignore the ethical consequences that could arise because of their decisions. As the third

He argued that every human being has unique preferences which greatly influence them when making choices (Breen and Rottman 1995). People are mostly motivated by money and are likely to carry out a cost-benefit analysis before settling on a decision. It is based on the following premises: human behavior is based on rational calculations, human beings act with rationality when making choices and these choices are aimed at maximizing gains or pleasure. In a similar manner, Interactionist Theory (IT) is used to study social interactions among people. It does not study the entire population at once, but rather studies smaller social groups. It focuses on how individuals act and how they make behavioral choices depending on the way they interpret situations (Hindess, 1998, p.42). From another perspective, it states that human beings only react to social stimuli. As such, they are social actors, and must adjust their behaviors in consideration to the behaviors of other human

Rational choice theory and social control theory both show why an individual may commit a criminal act, but they both also draw criticism of their approach. Rational choice theory critics point out that “The first problem with the theory has to do with explaining collective action. That is, if individuals simply base their actions on calculations of personal profit, why would they ever choose to do something that will benefit others more than themselves?” (Crossman, 2015). The theory focuses only on the individual’s mindset and doesn’t take into account any of their social structure. The society an individual grows up in may make them more prone to commit crime. Social control theory, in particular the study conducted by Travis Hirschi, also

People chose all behavior and including all criminal behavior. Which in this case the choices that criminals make brings them pleasure and adrenaline. Criminal choices can be controlled by fear of punishment, but not all the time. The crime will be limited when the benefits are reduced and the costs increase. Rational choice theory is a perspective that holds criminality in the result of conscious choice. Not to mention, that it is predicted that individuals choose to commit crime when the benefits outweigh the costs of disobeying the law. In the rational choice theory, individuals are seen as motivated offenders by their needs, wants and goals that express their preferences. This theory has been applied to a wide of range in crime, such as robbery, drug use, vandalism, and white collar crime. Furthermore, rational choice theory had a revival in sociology in the early 1960s, under the heading of exchange theory, and by the end of the decade was having a renewed influence in criminology, first as control theory and later as routine activities theory.

First I will provide an overview of what rational choice theory is and why it has staked such a prominent position in the discipline of political science. In this section I conclude that rational choice theory has indeed developed advanced methodologies at telling us how rational agents should behave. Then in my second section I will show, using the empirical case of the free-rider problem and collective action, as well as the case of suicide terrorism, that rational choice theory cannot adequately account for actual political phenomena. In my third section I will provide some reasons for why this is the case. Finally, in my concluding section I will posit a theoretical framework incorporating some refinements to the assumptions behind rational choice theory that would better aid a predictive (but not universalist) political science.