The Decision-Making Process from Rational and Psychological Perspectives: A Comparative Study

Abstract

This study examines one of the most fundamental and complex dimensions of human and managerial behavior, which is the decision-making process, specifically focusing on the ongoing conflict and interaction between rational and psychological perspectives. The central problem of the topic revolves around the logic behind decision-making: are decisions the outcome of rational, logical equations and analyses, or are they formed under the influence of subtle psychological, emotional, and environmental motives? To this end, the research adopts a comparative scientific methodology to evaluate different schools of thought. On one hand, logical-rational models (such as absolute rationality, Herbert Simon's bounded rationality, and Lindblom's incremental model) are presented; on the other hand, psychological and neuroscientific perspectives (such as Kahneman and Tversky's behavioral decision theory, Damasio's somatic marker hypothesis, the garbage can model of organizational choice, alongside spiritual and religious aspects) are discussed.

The findings of the study reveal that applying absolute rationality in reality is impractical, as humans are constantly subject to time pressures, limited cognitive capacity, and a scarcity of data. The research concludes that the "Dual-Process Theory" is the most suitable explanatory model, given that effective decisions stem from the interaction and balance between System 1 (based on fast intuition, experience, and mental heuristics) and System 2 (slow, logical analysis). Ultimately, it is shown that the value and applicability of either logic (rational or psychological) strictly depend on the level of complexity, clarity, and the overall environment of the situation in which the decision is made.