Following the classification of Cooke et al. (2009), we differentiate at the next level between one type of method based on assumptions about individual choice processes which can be described by mathematical axioms regarding outcome ordering, and on the other hand, methods based on social psychological theory which do not employ such rigorous restrictions on preferences over outcomes.

The next decision encountered in selecting an appropriate method of behavioural analysis is one based on the criteria of theoretical assumptions employed. Approaches based on utility maximisation explain and predict behaviour based on axiomatic mathematical models which assume that rational individuals maximise utility. The classical assumptions of rational choice are that given a choice set, preferences are complete, transitive and continuous. This is a vast literature dating back more than a century to the foundations of modern economic thought and utilitarianism (e.g. Mill, 1863). As it is beyond the scope of this guidance to discuss this vast literature, we limit ourselves to a couple of approaches relevant for CCVIA. If you believe that actor’s choice processes can be appropriately described through the axioms of rational choice, you will be lead towards these approaches.

On the other hand, approaches based on social psychological theory explain and predict behaviour through empirically-based statistical models using cognitive variables such as motivations and barriers for action. A prominent theory which underlies these approaches is Protection Motivation Theory, which posits that actors take action based on four factors: the perceived severity of a threatening event, the perceived probability of the occurrence, the efficacy of the recommended preventive behaviour, and the perceived self efficacy (Rogers 1983). In the domain of CCVIA, Grothmann and Patt (2005) draw on Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) to explain the adaptive behaviour in case studies in Germany and Zimbabwe, finding that adaptive actions taken are better explained through PMT than traditional microeconomic models of decision-making.

It is worth noting that though this decision node is essentially one of based on theoretical assumptions, one can tentatively say that those behaviours which appear intuitively irrational, may be more fruitfully examined through the methods of social-psychology. For example, more useful insights into the choice processes of the elderly regarding drinking water during heat waves may be gained from applying social psychological methods, than from a rational choice framework. This is because meaning and interpretation are often important in understanding and explaining behaviour, particularly outside of market setting, and social psychological approaches explicitly address these aspects.