Rasionalitas: Overview terhadap Pemikiran dalam 50 Tahun Terakhir

Rahmat Hidayat

doi:10.22146/buletinpsikologi.26772

Rasionalitas: Overview terhadap Pemikiran dalam 50 Tahun Terakhir

Rahmat Hidayat

(Submitted 19 July 2017)

(Published 19 July 2016)

Abstract

Humans are often viewed as rational beings. Studies on behavioral economics regarding rationality depend on both economic theories of rational decision making, as well as psychological cognitive theories behind mental and behavioral processes. Experimental research over the last half century has shown systematic deviations from the principle of rationality, also called anomaly, in individual judgment and decision-making. The theoretical explanation for the anomaly currently emphasizes on the limitations of individual rationality. Furthermore, limitations in rationality are seen as a universal feature of the individual. However, in recent times, there have been studies that attempt to prove individual differences as a factor behind anomalies in judgment and decision making. This paper attempts to summarize both points of view, and discusses the need to develop an instrument to measure rationality as an individual discriminatory factor in judgment and decision making.

Keywords

individual differences; rationality; rational belief; rational behavior; rational decision making

Full Text: Uncorrected Proof PDF

DOI: 10.22146/buletinpsikologi.26772

References

Allais, M. (1953). La Comportement de l’Homme Rationnel devant le Risque: Critique des Postulats et Axiomes de l’Ecole Americaine. English Summary. Econometrica, 21(4), 503 – 546.

Arkes, H.A., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 124-140.

Baron, J. (2008). Thinking and Deciding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bernoulli, D. 1738 (Translation in Econometrica 1954). Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk. Econometrica. 22:1, 23 – 36.

Coombs, C.H., Dawes, R.M., Tversky, A. (1970). Mathematical Psychology: An Elementary Introduction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

De Bruin, W.B., Parker, A.M., & Fischhoff, B. (2007). Individual differences in adult decision-making competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 938-956.

Edwards, W. (1954). The theory of decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 380-417.

Edwards, W., Miles, Jr., R.F., & von Winterfeldt, D. (Eds.). (2007). Advances in decision analysis: From foundations to applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75 (4), 643-669.

Evans, J.S.B.T., & Stanovich, K.E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: advancing the debate. Psychological Science, 83(3), 223-241.

Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 25-42.

Garland, H. (1991). Effects of absolute and relative sunk costs on the decision to persist with a course of action. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 48, 55-69.

Gigerenzer, G. (2007). Gut feelings: Short cuts to better decision making. New York: Penguin Books.

Gigerenzer, G. (2011). Personal reflections on theory and psychology. Theory & Psychology, 20, 733–743.

Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P.M., & ABC Research Group. (1999). Simple Heuristics that Make Us Smart. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Hastie, R., & Dawes, R.M. (2010). Rational Choice in an Uncertain World: The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hunt, E. (2007). The Mathematics of Behavior. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking Fast and Slow. New York: Ferrar, Straus & Giroux.

Kahneman, D., Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica. 47: 2, 263 – 291.

Kahneman, D., Tversky, A. (2000). (Editors). Choices, Values, and Frames. Eds. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.

Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Kell, M., Tan, B.C.Y., Wei, K-K., Saarinen, T., Tuunainen, V., & Wassenaar, A. (2000). A cross-cultural study on escalation of commitment behavior in software projects. MIS Quarterly, 24(2), 299-325.

Keren, G., & Schul, Y. (2009). Two is not always better than one: A critical evaluation of two-system theories. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 533–550.

Kozhevnikov, M. (2007). Cognitive Styles in the Context of Modern Psychology: Toward an Integrated Framework of Cognitive Style. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 464 - 481.

Lea, S.E.G. (1994). Rationality: The Formalist View. In H. Branstatter & W. Guth (eds.). Essay in Economic Psychology. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. p. 71-89.

Manktelow, K.I. (2004). Reasoning and ratioanlity: The pure and the practical. In K.I. Manketelow & M.C. Chung (Eds.), Psychology of reasoning: Theoretical and historical perspectives (pp.157-177). Hove, England: Psychology Press.

McFadden, D. (1999). Rationality for economists? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19, 73 – 105.

Miljkovic, D. (2005). Rational choice and irrational individuals or simply irrational theory: A critical review of the hypothesis of perfect rationality: The Journal of Socio-Economics, 34, 621-634.

Nobelprize.org. (1978). The Prize in Economics 1978 – Press Release.Nobel Media AB 2014. Web. 10 Mar 2017. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1978/press.html

Osman, M. (2004). An evaluation of dual-process theories ofreasoning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 988–1010.

Santos, L.R., & Rosati, A.G. (2015). The evolutionary roots of human decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 321-347.

Savage, L.J. (1954). The Foundations of Statistics. New York, NY: Wiley.

Schoemaker, P.J. (1982). The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations. Journal of Economic Literature. 20, 529 – 563.

Shafir, E., & LeBoeuf, R.A. (2002). Rationality. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 491-517.

Simon, H.A. (1955). A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 69, 99 – 118.

Simon, H.A. (1978). Rationality as Process and as Product of Thought. The American Economic Review. 68:2, 1 – 16.

Simon, H.A. (1982). From Substantive to Procedural Rationality. In H.A. Simon (editor). Model of Bouded Rationality. Vol. 2. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Soman, D., & Cheema, A. (2001). The effect of windfall gains on the sunk-cost effect. Marketing Letters, 12(1), 51-62.

Stanovich, K.E. (2009). What intelligence tests miss: The psychology of rational thought. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Stanovich, K.E. (2011). Rationality and the reflective mind. New York, NY: Oxfored University Press.

Stanovich, K.E. (2016. The Comprehensive Assessment of Rational Thinking. Educational Psychologist, 5(1_, 23-34.

Stanovich, K.E., & West, R.F. (1998a). Who uses base rates and P(D/~H)? An analysis of individual differences. Memory & Cognition, 26(1), 161-179.

Stanovich, K.E., & West, R.F. (1998b). Individual differences in rational thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Gernal, 127, 161-188.

Stanovich, K.E., & West, R.F. (1998c). Individual differences in framing and conjunction effects. Thinking and Reasoning, 4(4), 289-317.

Stanovich, K.E., & West, R.F. (1999). Discrepancies between normative and descriptive models of decision making and the understanding / acceptance principle. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 349-385.

Stanovich, K.E., & West, R.F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 645-726.

Stanovich, K.E., & West, R.F. (2007). Natural myside bias is independent of cognitive ability. Thinking and Reasoning, 13(3), 225-247.

Stanovich, K.E., & West, R.F. (2008a). On the relative independence of thiking biases and cognitive ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 672- 695.

Stanovich, K.E., & West, R.F. (2008b). On the failure of cognitive ability to predict myside and one-sided thinking biases. Thinking and Reasoning, 14(2), 129-167.

Stanovich, K.E., & West, R.F. (2014). The assessment of rational thinking: IQ ≠ RQ. Teaching of Psychology, 41, 265-271.

Stanovich, K.E., West, R.F., & Toplak, M. (2011). Intelligence and rationaly. In R.J. Sternberg & S.B. Kaufman (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of intelligence (pp. 784-826). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Stanovich, K. E., West, R., & Toplak, M. (2013).Myside bias, rational thinking, and intelligence. Current Direction in Psychological Science, 22, 259-264.

Stanovich, K. E., West, R., & Toplak, M. (2016). The Rationality Quotient: Toward A Test of Rational Thinking. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Thaler, R.H. (1987). Anomalies: The January effect. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1(1), 197-201.

Thaler, R.H. (1988). Anomalies: The ultimatum game. The Journal of economic perspectives, 2(4), 195-206.

Thaler, R.H. (1990). Anomalies: Savings, fungibility, and mental accounts. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 4(1), 193-205.

Thaler, R.H. (2015). Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

Toplak, M.E., West, R.F., & Stanovich, K.E. (2014). Assessing miserly information processing: An expansion of the Cognitive Reflection Test. Thinking and Reasong, 20, 147-168.

Tversky, A., Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science. 185, 1124 – 1131.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1982). Evidential impact of base rates. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases (pp.153-160). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Tversky, A., Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational Choice and the Framing Decisions. Journal of Business. 59: 4, 5251 – 5278.

Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1947). Theory of games and economic behavior. 2^ndEd.). Princeton: Princeton University.

West, R.F., Toplak, M.E., & Stanovich, K.E. (2008). Heuristics and biases as measures of critical thinking: Associations with cognitive ability and thinking dispositions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 930-941.

Refbacks

There are currently no refbacks.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.