THE POLITICAL PSYCHOLOGY OF RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY

William H. Riker

I. Science and Theory The scientific aim is to get generalizations about nature. Scientific generalizations are statements which must be validated from the subject class and the predicate class. Making a members of the subject class validate observe a member of the subject class! infer from observing the subject! finall" generalize the subject. #$planation the prediction has an importance to illustrate the generalization be placed in a theory which will provide empirical and deductive support and enhance confidence its reliabilit". Axioms are necessar" for the theor" to assume to e$ist in the scientific subject matter. Theorems derive from a$ioms b" theorists and theorems define motions and actions. Relation between theorem and a generalization is e%ual the theor" provides the basic step that is empirical description! thorough theorems. Revised empirical generalizations help to the revision and improvement of theor". II. Rational Choice Theory The author emphasizes theor" is important for the science! especiall" in social science! where actors are the basic units. Rational choice theor" model is based on those actors& decisions about choices. The" know that which goal is better than other and how the" can order their goal according to their needs. When the" failed their first choice! the" can tr" second best choice. There is no particular goal as universal! in the past some political philosophies have specified some particular goal but the rational choice theor" do not. 'nstead of a particular goal! the" use a set of goals that must be ordered. The author gives a common %uestion about a set of goals how we can set our goal as an order( He answered it no one ever knows all options! so he interprets the set as those choices known to the choosers. )nd the rational choice theor" assumed that actors& actions depend on their ordering of goals. The another assume is that actors choice their action not randoml" related to ends and that people tr" to choose instruments that the" believe will achieve their goals. *hoosing from among possible actions is complicated actors tend towards the most satisfactor" one. III. The Rational Choice model and Political Theory The simple identification of goals is the ke" point of the problem to figure out which goal are idle wishes or which goal are feasible choices is important in political theor". +easible goals can onl" be determined b" rational choice model. ,n the other hand! behaviorism can be considered that it can be adjusted from ps"cholog" to serve a political theor". )ccording to author! this

suggestion fails because behaviorism is far from to cover political theor" which re%uires defining reasonable goals. -ehaviorism assumes that intentions are not observable directl"! so the rational choice model supports that it is just correct for animals! when we observe the human being we can empath" and we can infer from behavior. )ccording to rational choice theor"! scientist can collect the outcomes! actions! and intentions to discover goals people have. +inall"! scientists can reach the e$planation about the goals. if he or she does not reach the" have to retr" to attribute the goal. this process can be repeated! until the prediction is correct and satisfactor". 'n addition! revising the generalizations is not possible because the method does not let the e$amination of voters& intention that is second reason wh" the behaviorism cannot be considered for political theor". +rom the rational choice aspect! the author cites that! it provides to revision and testing the intentions. 'n the rational choice theor"! scientists can derive an alternative set of goals. IV. The Role o !tility Theory in Rational Choice "odel# ,rdering the goals is appropriate instruments. )ccording the author utility is a measure on preference. Thanks to utilit"! one can compare two actions that are more useful than other and meet the goals. Expected utility calculations are appropriate for prediction and e$planation in man" real world applications but! it can cause misleading. +or e$ample! e$pected utilit" is an abstraction from all preferences and observations about the intentions. This process can complicate! because the probabilit" numbers ma" be ambiguous. Some puzzles are developed b" some scientists but the" are ignored. The authors sa"s how people count up choices cannot be answered but we just give the answer intentions just have been understood via rational choice model! the" can discover methods. V. Ho$ the %e ect# o E&'ected !tility Are E&a((erated 'n this section! the author gives wh" there are the theoretical criticisms about the e$pected utilit" /0 'mplications of the e$periments are not good wa" for participation pencil and paper tests and minimum rewards. 10 2robabilit" theor" is not being studied ver" well in the education s"stem. 30 Most ps"chologist perspectives do not match the e$pected utilit" theor"! the" seem to believe that that can arrive at accurate description of human choices if the subject are na4ve. 50 'n deepl"! ps"chologists stud" individual vision and sensation! individual thought process! individual decisions. -ut social scientists stud" what people do together. )nd interaction ma" well produce a difference choice. 60 'n the real world! decision.makers can choice again and again while these testes are implicated to decision.makers in the laborator" with the pencil and paper tests.

70 Man" scientists prefer to e$amine up to now! the model of e$pected utilit" ma$imization works good! which fact is itself a reason not to hast" in abandoning it simpl" on the basis of puzzles about a$ioms. VI. The Variety and Com'le&ity o H)man Goal# and Rational Choice Theory 'n this part! the author gives some critics like rational choice theor" assumes that people are self.regarding in all their actions. -ut! the rational choice theor" cannot define human character as a whole. 't does not show all lifetimes or events. )ccording to author! the theor" support that people do what the" want to. Their goals help their action to satisf". When we consider all goals are part of the rational choice theor"! one can solve the parts into self.regarding self.interested actions and other.regarding self.interest actions. The author summarize the theor" of rational choice as! for the social science /0 making the sentences which show actions from a subject class producing results in a predicate class and 10 testing and observation cannot decrease the validation. 't enhances the theor". He finalizes the article! b" conducting the social theor" must have a ps"chological base and the onl" available base is the rational choice model.