Traditional scientific views of rationality are couched in economic terms; choosing an option that does not maximize expectancy is irrational. The construct has been extended metaphorically so that the term “irrational” now describes any decision deemed foolish by the evaluator. For everyday decisions that do not involve money, a decision maker’s utilities are generally not known to an onlooker. Therefore, the pejorative label may be applied inappropriately because the evaluation is distorted by incorrect assessment of the decision maker’s goals. We (...) tie this linguistic confusion to the predominance of gambling studies within decision making research. For noneconomic decisions, we propose an alternative definition, one inspired by a theory of everyday decisions. We label a decision irrational if is inconsistent with a policy previously established by the decision maker. The hierarchical structure of everyday decisions, along with the descriptive multiattribute utility model, are core elements in the theory presented by Weiss et al. (2010 Theory and Decision, 68, 101–114). The theory holds that fast changing considerations are a crucial element in the evaluation of decision options. The momentary salience attached to a consequence can change with current, often fleeting circumstances. An option that would usually be rejected can quickly become too tempting to resist. Most people exhibit this kind of irrationality, violating a personal policy, some of the time—and they are not necessarily foolish to do so. (shrink)

Measuring psychological attributes, such as motivation, typically involves rating scales, assuming that an attribute can be ordered, and that ratings represent this order. Previously, only the first assumption had been tested, albeit limited. First, we checked the ordinal structure of motivation, looking at whether people can establish transitive relations between motivation levels in pairwise comparisons; and we found different ordering patterns: strict transitive, weak transitive, changing order, and intransitivity. The rate of intransitivity was similar to that found previously and was (...) somewhat higher than we obtained when we asked participants to compare definitely quantitative attributes. Second, we checked if specific ordering patterns were related to individual interpretations of the statements that deviated from expected motivation types. Indeed, about a third of participants miscategorized statements, and these deviant interpretations were related to intransitivity as well as weak transitivity. Third, we checked whether Likert ratings represent the order of motives obtained from pairwise comparisons. We found rather homomorphic representation: ratings correlated with the order, but they did not differentiate between different ordering patterns and hierarchies of motives. We conclude that the Likert rating scale provides less information about respondents than pairwise ordering. The findings question the mainstream practice of using rating scales without testing underlying assumptions. (shrink)

Part II: Suppes and the mature theory. Representation and uniqueness.