John Scott's article on Rational Choice Theory gives a good overview and historical perspective of the theory, and how psychologists from differing backgrounds have supported or criticized the theory (Scott, 2000). As well as a thorough explanation of what the theory entails, he also gives the logic of the counterarguments and allows the reader to thoroughly analyze the arguments for and against the theory and to examine the areas of human behavior which the theory cannot explain.
Basically, the rational choice theory states that humans behave in a purely rational manner and the actions they perform are for their own benefit (Scott, 2000). The theory says that there are rewards and punishments associated with each action and the individual ways these and decides if it will benefit them to perform the act: if the rewards outweigh the punishment which is risked, then they will go through with performing the act. Psychologists have also developed the theory to include the promise of reward and the threat of punishment as motivating factors which drive individuals to commit or not commit certain acts.
Problems with the theory, says Scott, are that it cannot fully explain collective action, social norms or social structure, which run counter to rational choice (Scott, 2000). He explores how other psychologists have tried to explain this from varying viewpoints.
Rational choice theory is particularly relevant in the Criminal Justice System in the United States because if people can make rational choices, then theoretically there should be no crime. Crime exists because individuals make a rational choice to commit a crime, even though they know it is against the law and that they will be punished if they are caught and charged with the crime (Scott, 2000).
The study of why individuals commit crime has tried to determine what factors they do consider when making the "rational choice" (Felson and Clarke, 1998, 7-8). Cri...