Professional Documents
Culture Documents
University of Exeter. UK
psychology’.
Both of these areas may be distinguished from another tradition,
derived from normative models of economic decision-making,
which does attempt to relate cognitions and values to behavior, but
arguably fails to give an accurate representation of the processes in-
volved at an individual level. It is this tradition which has most in-
fluenced psychological definitions of rationality. At its simplest, a
decision may be defined as ‘rational’ if it is seen, on balance, as
more likely to have good consequences than bad, in comparison to
other available options. In other words, the maximization of ex-
pected profit is the measure of rationality. Adopting this approach,
one can calculate the subjective expected utility (SEU) of any op-
tion by taking each identifiable possible consequence of the option,
obtaining an evaluation of its desirability to the individual (utility),
multiplying this evaluation by its perceived probability, and summ-
ing the products over the set of identified consequences. The
greater the SEU of a given option, the more likely it should be to be
chosen, and in many situations researchers have found support for
this prediction.
Is cigarette smoking ‘rational’ according to any such definition?
Bearing in mind that the SEU approach defines rationality in terms
of subjective probabilities and evaluations of outcomes, the fact
that some people smoke and others do not might simply be at-
tributable to smokers assigning lower importance and/or pro-
babilities to the risks involved. Mausner and Platt (1971) calculated
smokers’ SEUs for stopping smoking and continuing and indeed
found some evidence that smokers who had higher SEUs for stopp-
ing as compared with continuing were more likely to try to stop.
More troublesome for the SEU approach, however, was the finding
that smokers’ SEUs for stopping were reliably greater than their
SEUs for continuing. In other words, these smokers were prepared
to acknowledge that smoking was bad for them, on balance (given
a particular way of calculating this ‘balance’), but just seeing it as
‘bad on balance’ was not enough to make them decide to stop. This
is consistent with other evidence (e.g. Eiser, Sutton and Wober,
1979) which suggests that, even though smokers may be more scep-
tical of the health hazards of smoking than non-smokers, they still
d o not deny them entirely.
Attempts to make sense of such findings whilst preserving the
main assumptions of the SEU approach have taken the line that
one must be far more specific about the particular kind of decision
Smoking, addiction and decision-making 17
Conclusions
References