Arguments Against Rational Choice Theory

“Having good sense”, “being levelheaded”, or “being sensible” are common American-English terms that encompass the idea of rational choice theory. Common sense is a trait many people commonly expect from others as people show frustration when someone lacks common sense. We expect a level of rationality from one another; this is where rational choice theory comes in. On the outset, rational choice theory simply makes “sense”. The basic idea is that people conduct actions that will earn rewards and avoid punishments, a simple idea that we see other humans follow just as we do. This begs a couple questions: Where do irrational actions, such as crime or collective action, fit in? And is rational choice theory able to hold against these criticisms?

Both expect the person to maximize benefits and minimize punishments, as mentioned above. Humans are not omniscient; all decisions are made with the limited amount of information available to a person. Generally, many wish to get everything they want without any risk of punishment or cost. Unfortunately, this is impossible due to others using rational choice theory as they are also trying to maximize their rewards and benefits while avoiding punishment and costs (Browning, Scott; 2000). Therefore, a “negotiation” happens between in a social exchange where people must balance which goals to attain and the means to achieve those goals. This may include some levels of maintaining a relationship to receive long-term rewards and benefits by giving up short-term rewards or benefits. Thus, one must consider the possibilities given up by taking a specific course of action. In economics this is known the opportunity cost; “the loss of potential gain from other alternatives when one alternative is chosen,” (Bowmaker, 2005). If humans are always working to maximize rewards, minimize punishment, while considering all information available, what of the people who act irrational within the rational choice theory? Rational choice theory receives criticism for daily occurrences. For example, criminal acts.

In Criminology, rational choice theory is often neglected as a valuable

If their doctrine or priest states that their leader is always watching them, a person may feel the need to activity commit goodwill to avoid punishment for their lack of good deeds, for little to no reward. Another possibility is that person may want to gain prestige from their peers. This gives this person power, intentional or not, within the context of the church to promote goodwill. While the person has to pay a cost of time or money to commit goodwill along with receiving little to no tangible benefits or rewards, the “negotiation” power they obtain can be used to “convince” more people to collectively act under that single person’s will or goal. Acts do not have to end in extrinsic or tangible rewards or benefits; intrinsic rewards and benefits can be enough for a