Rational choice or maximisation approaches can be further distinguished according to those approaches that assume individuals are fully rational, having the ability compare a full set of alternatives and attributes, and those that assume only bounded rationality. Fully rational means that agents are perfect optimizers, in the sense that they have complete information and are able to calculate outcomes for all contingencies, and optimize utility (Cooke et al., 2009). While utility maximisation approaches are used widely, they have been criticised for making unrealistic assumptions. Knowledge is often not freely available, and the limitations of human cognitive capacities are well-documented (van den Bergh and Gowdy, 2000).

Bounded rationality relaxes the assumptions of utility maximisation, and aims to predict behaviour based on heuristics or rules of thumb, which are simple rules that achieve an approximately optimal outcome (Kahneman et al. 1982). One such rule is that people engage in a mental search of available options, and choose the first one that is satisfactory (Simon 1956). This so-called ‘satisficing’ is different from maximising in that it involves each choice option with a set of minimum criteria, rather than the outcomes of all alternatives to find the best one. Closely linked to bounded rationality is the concept of adaptive heuristics: people develop and use mental shortcuts to identify acceptable options quickly, with a minimal amount of necessary information (Payne et al. 1993).