Search for solution to problems inherently entails a problem of allocating attention in the face of uncertainty. It therefore requires the use of aspiration-based satisficing or other (dysfunctional or fast-and-frugal) heuristics and stopping rules to close off open-ended choice problems. In discussing the orthodox notion of optimal search, we end up concluding that it is logically deficient if applied to open-ended problems. Moreover, heuristic-based methods may be more effective means than lengthy deliberation for gathering information on which to base decisions – though it is shown how using heuristics can sometimes prove to be a dysfunctional way of navigating complex information environments. These issues are explored especially in relation to the challenges of choosing mobile (cell) phone connection contracts, filling job vacancies and finding marriage partners, with a focus on what is “procedurally rational,” i.e., contextually appropriate deliberation. The chapter’s analysis of shortcut search methods includes the role of market institutions, goodwill relationships and creative thinking, along with the use of heuristics for dealing with source credibility issues.

Here, we dive into the details of RCT in order to contrast it with the ideas encapsulated by BPS. What is rational political behavior? We discuss the basic assumptions of the RCT model, especially regarding the cognitive abilities and motivations that people use when making complex decisions about abstract topics such as public policy preferences and voting. BPS diverges from RCT in two critical ways: it is process-oriented, and incorporates known limits on the cognitive abilities of both citizens and elites into models of political behavior, and 2) it explains motivations behind preferences, especially those distinct from material or economic self-interest. We interrogate whether standard RCT assumptions are plausible, such as whether voters can adequately collect and weigh all the information relevant to a political choice in their heads simultaneously, why citizens turn out to vote when their potential to impact the outcome of an election is infinitesimal, or the public’s willingness to support costly anti-terror policies even if the likelihood of a serious attack is vanishingly small.