Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-nwzlb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-27T19:21:42.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

THE POTENTIAL OF NEUROECONOMICS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2008

Colin F. Camerer*
Affiliation:
California Institute of Technology

Abstract

The goal of neuroeconomics is a mathematical theory of how the brain implements decisions, that is tied to behaviour. This theory is likely to show some decisions for which rational-choice theory is a good approximation (particularly for evolutionarily sculpted or highly learned choices), to provide a deeper level of distinction among competing behavioural alternatives, and to provide empirical inspiration for economics to incorporate more nuanced ideas about endogeneity of preferences, individual difference, emotions, endogeneous regulation of states, and so forth. I also address some concerns about rhetoric and practical epistemology. Neuroscience articles are necessarily speculative and the science has proceeded rapidly because of that rhetorical convention. Single-study papers are encouraged and are necessarily limited in what can be inferred, so the sturdiest cumulation of results, and the best guide forward, comes in review journals which compile results and suggest themes. The potential of neuroeconomics is in combining the clearest experimental paradigms and statistical methods in economics, with the unprecedented capacity to measure a range of neural and cognitive activity that economists like Edgeworth, Fisher and Ramsey daydreamed about but did not have.

Type
Essay
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Colander, D. 2008. Neuroeconomics, the hedonimeter, and utility: some historical links. Journal of Economic Perspectives.Google Scholar
Fox, C. and Poldrack, R. (in press). Prospect theory in the brain. In Decision neuroscience, ed. Glimcher, P., Camerer, C., Fehr, E. and Poldrack, R.. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Grant, S. and Polak, B.. 2007. Absolute ambiguity aversion: Mean dispersion preferences. Yale working paper.Google Scholar
Glimcher, P., Camerer, C. F., Fehr, E. and Poldrack, R.. 2008. Decision neuroscience. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Harrison, G. 2008. Neuroeconomics: A critical reconsideration. Economics and Philosophy 24.Google Scholar
Hsu, M., Bhatt, M., Adolphs, R., Tranel, D. and Camerer, C. F. 2005. Neural systems responding to degrees of uncertainty in human decision-making. Science 310: 1680–3.Google Scholar
List, J. 2006. When the behavioralist meets the market. Journal of Political Economy.Google Scholar
Poldrack, R. A. & Wagner, A. D. 2004. What can neuroimaging tell us about the mind? Insights from prefrontal cortex. Current Directions in Psychological Science 13: 177–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubinstein, A. Comments on neuroeconomics. Economics and Philosophy.Google Scholar
Spiegler, R. 2008. Comments on the potential significance of neuroeconomics for economic theory. Economics and Philosophy 24.Google Scholar
Stigler, G. 1981. Economics or ethics? In The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol. 2, ed. McMurrin, S.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar