What are different ways of specifying utility and decision making? This question is related to this question about the Machina paradox and about the expected utility model. In this question, I'd like to know a little more about various or even competing ways of specifying utility and decision making. It'd be nice if we could formulate a list of different formulations. To start, I suppose there is the Von Neumann–Morgenstern expected utility model, Savage's subjective expected utility model, or Prospect theory.

Is there anything else that is commonly used?
This won't get at individual choice, but how about evolutionary approaches? Perhaps this isn't what you are looking for, but one way to model decisions is to wander from the rational paradigm entirely. All changes in behavior are driven by natural selection, and so an equilibrium is based on stability.


  In a symmetric normal form game, an evolutionarily
  stable strategy is a (possibly mixed) strategy with the following property: a population in
  which all members play this strategy is resistant to invasion by a small group of mutants
  who play an alternative mixed strategy.


Text reference: Sandholm (2010)

Edit: Wanted to add some more exotic models, inspired by @CompEcon. These are interesting models for temptation, inconsistency, etc because you can get at internal conflict by seeing a DM as the unification of multiple parts.

Dual-Self Model of Impulse Control (Fudenberg and Levine 2006)

The Brain as a Hierarchical Organization (Brocas and Carrillo 2008)