In practice, it appears that not everyone has made a rational consideration for every action they perform; many decisions are made from emotions, intuition or experience. The question is of course why people do not base everything on rationality and what effects it would have if everyone based everything on rationality. To map this out, the rational actor model can be used. This model of rational behavior can be used to explain certain situations in practice. The rational actor model also indicates where the boundaries of the model lie.
The rational actor model
To use the rational actor model, we must assume a situation in which people or organizations have a clear goal. In the rational actor model we also assume that people, or the organization, then make the choices that best or fastest achieve the goal. If we take the example of a company, we can say that the goal that the company pursues is to make a profit and that the company will therefore make the choices that maximize profits . The rational actor model cannot always be used; In relationships, for example, people will not so much make choices that make their possible goals in the relationship as achievable as possible, but will rather make decisions based on emotions.
Egoism vs altruism in rationality
What is important to understand about the rational actor model is that rationality does not always refer to selfishness; someone who makes a rational decision in a given situation does not have to do so from selfishness. One can also set an altruistic goal and then rationally make the decisions that lead to the best fulfillment of the altruistic goal. For example, volunteers at a food bank can make rational decisions, even though they are unlikely to be selfish.
When do we see rational behavior
We see rational behavior more often:
- When the stakes are high
- Repeatedly
- With group choices
- For easy problems
When the stakes are high, we are more likely to make a rational choice; With small decisions we quickly see that decisions are based on feelings or emotions. This is also easy to explain; After all, we do not have enough time to rationally weigh every decision we make. That is why we make a lot of decisions on the basis of a kind of automatism, and we will think longer about larger decisions. For example, we are more likely to buy a chocolate bar at a gas station than we are to take a new job; For the last choice we will try to think much more rationally.
Repeatedly, people also appear to think rationally more quickly. If people are confronted with the same kind of situation again and again, they will make the decision more and more rationally; in this way one tries to optimize the outcomes of the decision.
If a choice is made by a group, the choice is also more likely to be made rationally; this is due to the different players within a group who all show different perspectives through arguments. The basis on which the decision is made becomes broader and therefore more rational.
With easy problems people are also more likely to make a rational decision; After all, if it is easy to make a decision rationally, we are more likely to do so.
Influence of others on rationality
In the rational actor model there are two options for making a decision. On the one hand we have the loose ,decision,, where the goal depends on one’s own action alone. On the other hand, there is also the ,game, model in which the goal depends on the actions of others. Needless to say, it is especially with the latter that rationality becomes more difficult; After all, here one also has to estimate what others will do. Most people will assume that others are also rational.
Bias in rational behavior
With the rational actor model it is important to take into account various so-called ,biases,; There are certain snags in the model that ensure that people do not always think rationally. For example, Daniel Kahneman states that people have two ways of thinking; a slow and a fast way of thinking. The slow way of thinking is more rational, while the fast way is more based on emotions.
Another interesting fact is something that prospect theory teaches us; as the amounts become larger, people are more likely to avoid risk. When people lose, people do it the other way around; then they take more risks to keep losses as small as possible. This also explains why many people take high risks when gambling to make up for their losses.
Hyperbolic discounting is another bias; For people, quick gratification is more important than long-term goals. For example, if you want to be fit and someone asks you if you want a bar of chocolate in a week, you will probably say no. If someone asks the same question, but then immediately offers the bar, it is much more likely that it will be accepted.
Status Q uo Bias is another bias; people often think based on the existing status quo. For example, if there is a law that everyone is automatically an organ donor, unless the person indicates otherwise, almost everyone will be a donor. If the law is correct that you have to indicate that you are a donor, there will be far fewer donors. Even if all obstacles (such as the extra effort to check a box) are removed or kept the same, it appears that people are more likely to accept the status quo than to make a decision that deviates from it.
Base Rate Bias: We are influenced by what we think now. For example, if people think of a certain number and then you ask them another number, it will be close to it. For many ,mentalists , or magicians, this is a useful feature that they like to use.