Abstract: People are often restricted in their limited time or knowledge when making decisions. This raises a question of how people make risky decisions. In the early time, the Expected Utility theory gave a normative answer to the question. The status of the theory, however, was challenged by the Allais paradox. Simon rejected the idea of optimal choice, proposing the idea of “bounded rationality.” Since then, several researchers became interested in developing models of bounded rationality. In this paper, we compare and contrast Equate-to-Differentiate and Priority Heuristic approaches. We review the methods and the criteria, emphasizing the differences between them in terms of both the models they use and the computational strategies they employ. An implication for further research is discussed and suggested

Key words: bounded rationality, equate-to-differentiate, priority heuristic