Real Worlds: Simulating Non-standard Rationality in Microeconomics

  • Giuliana Gerace
Part of the Computational Social Sciences book series (CSS)


In this chapter, the differences between the standard notion of rationality, used in neoclassical economic model, and the notion of “non-standard” rationality are highlighted. The notion of non-standard rationality has been used in an attempt to address the discrepancies found between the ideal cognitive attitudes of the homo economicus and limited rational abilities of real decision-makers. By contrast, this notion is not supported by any adequate nor exhaustive theoretical account of “non-standard” preferences and therefore doesn’t provide useful applications for real-world simulations in microeconomics.


Rationality Conventional economics Behavioural economics Economic preferences Market simulation 


  1. Akerlof, G. A. (2002). Behavioural macroeconomics an macroeconomics behaviour. The American Economic Review, 92(3), 411–433.Google Scholar
  2. Akerlof, G. A., & Kranton, R. E. (2000). Economics and identity. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 715–753.Google Scholar
  3. Akerlof, G., & Shiller, R. (2009). Animal Spirits: How human psychology drives the economy and why it matters for global capitalism. Rinceton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Allais, M. (1953). Le Comportement de l'Homme Rationnel devant le Risque: Critique des Postulats et Axiomes de l'Ecole Americaine. Econometrica, 21(4), 503–546.Google Scholar
  5. Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that shape our decisions. New York, NY: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  6. Ariely, D., Lowenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2003). Coherent arbitrariness: Stable demand curves without stable preferences. The Quarterly Journl of Economics, 118, 73–105.Google Scholar
  7. Baptista, M. L., et al. (2014). An agent-based model of consumer behaviour based on the BDI Architecture and Neoclassical theory. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 41, 170–178.Google Scholar
  8. Bargh, J. A., & Morsella, E. (2008). The unconscious mind. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 73–79.Google Scholar
  9. Becker, S. G. (1976). The economic approach to human behaviour. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bicchieri, C. (2006). The grammar of society: The nature and dynamics of social norms. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Binmore, K. (2010). Social norms or social preferences? Mind and Society, 9, 139–158.Google Scholar
  12. Bratman, M. (1987). Intentions, plans and practical reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Camerer, et al. (2003). Regulations for conservatives: Behavioural economics and the case for asymmetric paternalism. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 51, 1211–1254.Google Scholar
  14. Camerer, C. F., Loewenstein, G., & Rabin, M. (2004). Advances in behavioral economics (The Roundtable Series in behavioral Economics). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Cialdini, R. B., et al. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and re-evaluation of the role of norms in human behaviour. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 201–234.Google Scholar
  16. Colombo, M. (2014). Caring, the emotions and social norm compliance. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology and Economics, 7(1), 33–47.Google Scholar
  17. Dahr, R., & Gorlin, M. (2013). A dual system framework to understand preference construction processes in choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(4), 528–542.Google Scholar
  18. De Neys, W. (2014). Conflict detection, dual processes and logical intuition: Some clarifications. Thinking and Reasoning, 20(2), 169–187.Google Scholar
  19. De Neys, W., & Glumicic, T. (2008). Conflict monitoring in dual process theories of thinking. Cognition, 106(3), 1248–1299.Google Scholar
  20. DellaVigna, S. (2009). Psychology and economics: Evidence from the field. Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, 47(2), 315–372.Google Scholar
  21. Diasakos T. M. (2013). Complexity and bounded rationality in individual decision problems. DiscussionPaper series 201314, Department of Economics, University of St. Andrews.Google Scholar
  22. Dietrich, F., & List, C. (2013). Where do preferences come from? International Journal of Game Theory, Springer; Game Theory Society, 42(3), 613–637.Google Scholar
  23. Dijksterhuis, A., Bos, M. W., Nordgren, L. F., & van Baaren, R. B. (2006). On making the right choice: The deliberation-without-attention effect. Science, 311, 1005–1007.Google Scholar
  24. Djiksterhuis, A., & Nordgren, L. F. (2006). A theory of unconscious thought. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 95–106.Google Scholar
  25. Elster, J. (1994). Rationality, emotions and social norms. Synthese, 98(1), 21–49.Google Scholar
  26. Espinosa, B. A., et al. (2017). Toward formal modelling of affective agents in a BDI architecture. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, 17(1), 5.Google Scholar
  27. Evans, J. (2007). Hypothetical thinking: Dual processes in reasoning and judgement. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  28. Evans, J. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–278.Google Scholar
  29. Evans, J., & Stanovich, K. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Sciences, 8(3), 223–241.Google Scholar
  30. Fehr, E., & Gaetcher, S. (2000). Fairness and retaliation. The economics of reciprocity. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14, 159–181.Google Scholar
  31. Fisman, R., Shachar, K., & Markovits, D. (2007). Individual preferences for giving. American Economic Review, 97(5), 1858–1876.Google Scholar
  32. Frank, R. H. (2006). Microeconomics and behaviour. McGraw-Hill/Irwin publisher.Google Scholar
  33. Gerace, G. (2012a) Justifying normative objects: An answer to J. Searle’s model. Paper presented at the 20th anniversary conference of the Italian Society for Analytic Philosophy (SIFA) – Sept. 12–15, 2012, Alghero (University of Sassari).Google Scholar
  34. Gerace, G. (2012b) Positionality and normative ought in Max Scheler’s Formalism. American Philosophical Association - Max Scheler Society of North America biannual conference (Chicago USA)Google Scholar
  35. Gerace, G. (2012c). Normative objects and material a-priori. Poster presented at the conference “Objects in Mind” - Interacting Mind Centre, Aarhus University.Google Scholar
  36. Gerace, G. (2012d). Normativity and material-a priori. Draft contents sent and discussed via e-mail with Francesco Guala; July the 7th 2012.Google Scholar
  37. Gerace, G. (2012e). On the Justification of normative objects. Draft contents sent via e-mail to the attention of Mattia Gallotti and John Michael; December the 1st 2012.Google Scholar
  38. Gerace, G. (2012f). Justifying normative objects: An answer to J.Searle’s model Conference long abstract sent and discussed with Enrico Terrone; September the 18th 2012.Google Scholar
  39. Gerace, G. (2013a). Emergence and persistence of social norms: A material-based account. Paper presented at the Mid-Term Postgraduate conference of the Italian Society of Logic and Philosophy of Science –SILFS - May 29–31, 2013, University of Urbino.Google Scholar
  40. Gerace, G. (2013b). Coordinate action and individual intentions. Poster presented at the conference “Minds in Common” Institut d’Etude de la Cognition, École normale supérieure.Google Scholar
  41. Gerace, G. (2013c). Justifying normative objects: A material apriori-based account. Phd Project Proposal submitted at the University of Exeter - College of Social Sciences and International Studies.Google Scholar
  42. Gerace, G. (2018). A study for the representation of social normativity. Phd Project Proposal submitted at the IMT – Lucca and sent to the attention of Gustavo Cevolani; August the 3rd 2018.Google Scholar
  43. Gigerenzer, G. (2008). Why heuristic works. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 20–281.Google Scholar
  44. Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Cognitive Science, 103(4), 650–666.Google Scholar
  45. Goodwin, N., et al. (2014). Microeconomics in context. New York: Routledge. Gordon, R.Google Scholar
  46. Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834.Google Scholar
  47. Hansson, O. (1995). Changes in preferences. Theory and Decision, 38(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
  48. Hassin, R., Uleman, J. S., & Bargh, J. A. (Eds.). (2005). The new Unconscious. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Hausman, D. (2012). Preference, value, choice and welfare. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  50. Hédoin, C. (2015). From utilitarianism to paternalism: When Behavioural economics meets moral philosophy. Revue de Philosophieèconomique, 16, 73–106.Google Scholar
  51. Heidl, S. (2016). Philosophical problems of Behavioural economics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. Heukelom, F., & Sent, E.-M. (2017). Behavioral economics: From advising organizations to nudging individuals. Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, 1(1), 5–10.Google Scholar
  53. Hirshleifer, D., & Shumway, T. (2003). Good day sunshine: Stock returns and the weather. Journal of Finance, 58(3), 1009–1032.Google Scholar
  54. Infante, G., Lecouteux, G., & Sugden, R. (2016). Preference purification and the inner rational agent: A critique of the conventional wisdom of behavioural welfare economics. Journal of Economic Methodology, 23(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
  55. Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 93(5), 1449–1475.Google Scholar
  56. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  57. Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2005). A model of heuristic judgment. In K. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 267–294). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292.Google Scholar
  59. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J., & Thaler, R. H. (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98(6), 1325–1348.Google Scholar
  60. Kant, I. (1781). Kritik der reinen Vernunft. De Gruyter Verlag, 2018.Google Scholar
  61. Levin, J., & Milgrom, P. (2004). Introduction to choice theory. [online] pp. 1–25. Available at:
  62. Lieberman, M. D. (2003). Reflective and reflexive judgment processes: A social cognitive neuroscience approach. In Forgas et al. (Eds.), Social judgment: Implicit and explicit processes. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Logan, G. D., & Crump, M. J. (2010). Cognitive illusions of authorship reveal hierarchical error detection in skilled typists. Science, 330, 683–686.Google Scholar
  64. Lowenstein, G., & Lerner, J. (2003). The role of affect in decision making. In R. Dawson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective science (pp. 619–642). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  65. Marquès, G., & Weisman, D. (2016). Rethinking Rationality theory’s epistemological status. Normative vs positive approaches. Real World Economic Review, 77, 50–63.Google Scholar
  66. Marshall, A. (1890). Principles of economics. London: Macmillan and Company.Google Scholar
  67. Martin, J. W., & Sloman, S. A. (2013). Refining the dual-system theory of choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(4), 552–555.Google Scholar
  68. Mathis, K., & Steffen, A. D. (2015). From rational choice to behavioural economics. In K. Mathis & A. Tor (Eds.), Nudging - possibilities, limitations and applications in European law and economics. Springer.Google Scholar
  69. Melnikoff, D. E., & Bargh, J. A. (2018). The mythical number two. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(4), 280–293.Google Scholar
  70. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175–220.Google Scholar
  71. Pacherie, E. (2006). Towards a dynamic theory of intentions. In S. Pockett, W. P. Banks, & S. Gallagher (Eds.), Does consciousness cause behavior? An investigation of the nature of volition (pp. 145–167). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  72. Page, S. (2012). Aggregation in agent-based models of economics. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 27(2), 151–162.Google Scholar
  73. Paternotte, C., & Grose, J. (2012). Social norms and game theory: Harmony or discord? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 64, 551–587.Google Scholar
  74. Pennycook, G. (2017). A perspective on the theoretical foundation of dual process models. In W. De Neys (Ed.), Dual process theory 2.0. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  75. Rabin, M. (1993). Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. The American Economic Review, 83(5), 1281–1302.Google Scholar
  76. Rabin, M. (2000). Risk aversion and expected utility theory: A calibration theorem. Econometrica, 68, 1281–1290.Google Scholar
  77. Rabin, M. (2002a). A perspective on psychology and economics. The European Economic Review, 46(4–5), 657–685.Google Scholar
  78. Rabin, M. (2002b). Inference by believers in the law of small numbers. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(3), 775–816.Google Scholar
  79. Rabin, M., & Thaler, R. (2001). Anomalies: Risk Aversion. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15, 219–232.Google Scholar
  80. Rizzi, J. (2009). Behavioral basis of the financial crisis. Senior Investment Strategist, CapGen financial.Google Scholar
  81. Rumbell, T., et al. (2012). Emotions in autonomous agents: Comparative analysis of mechanisms and functions. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent System, 25(1), 1–45.Google Scholar
  82. Samson, A. (2016). The behavioral economics guide. London: Behavioral Science Solutions Ltd.Google Scholar
  83. Samuelson, P. A. (1948). Economics, an introductory analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill Company.Google Scholar
  84. Secchi, D., & Neumann, M. (Eds.). (2016). Agent-based simulation of organizational behavior: New Frontiers of social science research. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  85. Shane, F., Loewenstein, G., & O’Donoghue, T. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature, 40(2), 351–401.Google Scholar
  86. Sharpanskykh, A. (2007). Agent-based modeling of human organizations. In F. Amblard (Ed.), Proceedings of the 4th European social simulation association conference (pp. 335–347).Google Scholar
  87. Simon, H. A. (1982). Models of bounded rationality: Empirically grounded economic reason. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Ltd.Google Scholar
  88. Simon, A., & Voyer, B. (2014). Emergency purchasing situations: Implications for consumer decision-making. Journal of Economic Psychology, 44, 21–33.Google Scholar
  89. Slovic, P., et al. (2007). The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research, 177(3), 1333–1352.Google Scholar
  90. Smith, A. (1759). The theory of moral sentiments. (1986). Düsseldorf: Wirtschaft und Finanzen.Google Scholar
  91. Stanovich, K. E., et al. (2011). The complexity of developmental predictions from dual process models. Developmental Review, 31, 103–108.Google Scholar
  92. Sugden, R. (2005). Why rationality is not a consequence of Hume’s theory of choice. European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 12(1), 113–118.Google Scholar
  93. Chai Sun-Ki. (2001). Choosing an identity: A general model of preference and belief formation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  94. Sunstein, C. R., & Thaler, R. H. (2003). Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron. The University of Chicago Law Review, 70(4), 1159–1202.Google Scholar
  95. Tesfatsion, L. (2002). Agent-based computational economics. Growing economies from the bottom-up. Artificial Life, 8(1), 55–82.Google Scholar
  96. Thaler, R. H. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4(3), 199–214.Google Scholar
  97. Thaler, R. H. (1999). Mental accounting matters. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making., 12(3), 183–206.Google Scholar
  98. Thaler, R. H. (2016). Behavioural economics: Past, present and future. American Economic Review. American Economic Association, 106(7), 1577–1600.Google Scholar
  99. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  100. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.Google Scholar
  101. Velmans, M. (2000). Understanding consciousness. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  102. Von Wright, G. H. (1963). The logic of preference. Edimburgh: Edimburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  103. Weber, R., & Dawes, R. (2010). Behavioural economics. In N. J. Smelser & R. Swedberg (Eds.), The handbook of economic sociology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  104. Windrum, P., et al. (2007). Empirical validation of agent-based models: Alternatives and prospects. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 10(2), 1–8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giuliana Gerace
    • 1
  1. 1.Università di PaviaPaviaItaly

Personalised recommendations