Modern Transformations of Economics: Neuroeconomics

Tatevik  Mkrtchyan

doi:10.18096/TMP.2016.03.02

Authors

Tatevik Mkrtchyan Armenian State University of Economics

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18096/TMP.2016.03.02

Keywords:

neuroeconomics, neuroscience, brain, behavior, fMRI

Abstract

Traditionally, economists have not been interested in the neural underpinnings of human behavior. According to the classical decision-making theory, a decision-maker is a perfectly rational cognitive agent ignoring the influence of emotions. However, in recent years this model has been challenged by prospect theory, which identifies heuristics and biases that influence human choice. A recent approach known as neuroeconomics is a transdisciplinary field that tries to shed light on the computational and neurobiological mechanisms underlying the decision-making process, integrating ideas and methods from the fields of psychology, neuroscience, economics and computer science. Neuroeconomics gives researchers an opportunity to look into the “black box” of the human brain, which will give an opportunity to investigate how people make choices, how the brain calculates gains and losses, the roles of emotions and cognition, etc. The aim of this paper is to survey findings from the neuroeconomic literature and investigate the implications of this knowledge for understanding human behavior in various contexts.

Author Biography

Tatevik Mkrtchyan, Armenian State University of Economics

Assistant Professor

References

ARMEL, K.C., BEAUMEL, A., & RANGEL, A. (2008). Biasing simple choices by manipulating relative visual attention, Judgment and Decision Making, 3(5), 396-403. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500000413

CAMERER, C., LOEWENSTEIN, G., & PRELEC, D. (2005). Neuroeconomics: How neuroscience can inform economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 43(1), 9-64. https://doi.org/10.1257/0022051053737843

COLANDER, D. (2007). Retrospectives: Edgeworth’s hedonimeter and the quest to measure utility. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21 (2), 215-225. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.21.2.215

DATTA, S. (ed.) (2011). Economics: Making Sense of the Modern Economy, 3rd Edition. London: Profile Books Ltd.

FEHR, E. & RANGEL, A. (2011). Neuroeconomic foundations of economic choice—Recent advances. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(4), 3-30. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.25.4.3

FREDERICK, S., LOEWENSTEIN, G., & O’DONOGHUE, T. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature, 40(2), 351-401. https://doi.org/10.1257/002205102320161311

GOLDSTEIN, R., ALMENBERG, J., DREBER, A., EMERSON, J., HERSCHKOWITSCH, A., & KATZ, J. (2008). Do more expensive wines taste better? Evidence from a large sample of blindtastings. Journal of Wine Economics, 3(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1931436100000523

JEVONS, W. (1871). The Theory of Political Economy. London and New York: Macmillan and Co.

KAHNEMAN, D., & TVERSKY, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-292. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185

KAHNEMAN, D., DIENER, E., & SCHWARZ, N. (eds.). (1999). Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0953820806231972

MCCLURE, S. M., LAIBSON, D. I., LOEWENSTEIN, G., & COHEN, J. D. (2004a). Separate neural systems value immediate and delayed monetary rewards. Science, 306(5695), 503-507. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1100907

MCCLURE, S.M., JIAN, L., TOMLIN, D., CYPERT, K. S., MONTAGUE, L. M., & MONTAGUE, P.R. (2004b). Neural correlates of behavioral preference for culturally familiar drinks, Neuron, 44(2), 379–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2004.09.019

MONTAGUE, P. R., BERNS, G.S., COHEN J.D., McCLURE, S.M., PAGNONI, G., DHAMALA, M., WIEST, M.C., KARPOV, I., KING, R.D., APPLE, N., & FISHER, R.E. (2002). Hyperscanning: simultaneous fMRI during linked social interactions. Neuroimage, 16(4), 1159–1164. https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2002.1150

PLASSMANN, H., O’DOHERTY, J., & RANGEL, A. (2007). Orbitofrontal cortex encodes willingness to pay in everyday economic transactions. Journal of Neuroscience, 27(37), 9984-9988. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.2131-07.2007

PLASSMANN, H., O'DOHERTY, J., SHIV, B., & RANGEL, A. (2008). Marketing actions can modulate neural representations of experienced pleasantness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(3), 1050-1054. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0706929105

SANFEY, A.G., & CHANG, L.J. (2008).Multiple systems in decision making. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1128(1), 53-62. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1399.007

SANFEY, A. G., RILLING, J. K., ARONSON, J. A., NYSTROM, L. E., & COHEN, J. D. (2003). The neural basis of economic decision-making in the ultimatum game. Science, 300(5626), 1755–1758. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1082976

SANFEY, A., LOEWENSTEIN, G., MCCLURE, S., & COHEN, J. (2006) Neuroeconomics: cross-currents in research on decision-making. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(3), 108-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.01.009

SHALLICE, T., BURGESS, P., & ROBERTSON, I. (1996).The domain of supervisory processes and temporal organization of behavior.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 351(1346), 1405–1412. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1996.0124

SHEFRIN, H.M. & THALER, R.H. (1988).The behavioral life-cycle hypothesis. Economic Inquiry, 26(4), 609–643. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.1988.tb01520.x

THALER, R. H. (1980).Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1(1), 39-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(80)90051-7

TOM, S. M., FOX, C.R., TREPEL C., & POLDRACK R.A. (2007). The neural basis of loss aversion in decision-making under risk. Science, 315(5811), 515-518. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1134239

ZAK, P. J. (2004). Neuroeconomics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 359(1451), 1737-1748. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1544