IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/jeclit/v51y2013i4p1155-82.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Review Essay about Foundations of Neuroeconomic Analysis by Paul Glimcher

Author

Listed:
  • Colin F. Camerer

Abstract

Neuroeconomics aims to discover mechanisms of economic decision, and express them mathematically, to predict observed choice. While the contents of neuroeconomic models and evidence are obviously different than in traditional economics, (some of the) goals are identical: to explain and predict choice, the effects of comparative statics, and perhaps make interesting new welfare judgments that are defensible. To this end, Paul Glimcher's important book carefully describes how economics, psychological, and neural levels of explanation can be linked (a structure which has been successful in visual neuroscience). As Glimcher shows, the neural evidence is quite strong for a process of learning valuations through prediction error, and a simple model of neural valuation and comparison that corresponds to random utility (though subject to normalization, which produces menu effects). There is also rapidly growing evidence for more complicated constructs in behavioral economics, including prospect theory's account of risky choice, hyperbolic time discounting, level-k models of games, and social preferences corresponding to internal reward based on what happens to other agents.

Suggested Citation

  • Colin F. Camerer, 2013. "A Review Essay about Foundations of Neuroeconomic Analysis by Paul Glimcher," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 51(4), pages 1155-1182, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:aea:jeclit:v:51:y:2013:i:4:p:1155-82
    Note: DOI: 10.1257/jel.51.4.1155
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jel.51.4.1155
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to AEA members and institutional subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. M. Keith Chen & Venkat Lakshminarayanan & Laurie R. Santos, 2006. "How Basic Are Behavioral Biases? Evidence from Capuchin Monkey Trading Behavior," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 114(3), pages 517-537, June.
    2. Andrew Caplin & John Leahy, 2001. "Psychological Expected Utility Theory and Anticipatory Feelings," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(1), pages 55-79.
    3. Luigino Bruni & Robert Sugden, 2007. "The road not taken: how psychology was removed from economics, and how it might be brought back," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(516), pages 146-173, January.
    4. B. Douglas Bernheim, 2009. "On the Potential of Neuroeconomics: A Critical (but Hopeful) Appraisal," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 1(2), pages 1-41, August.
    5. Vincent P. Crawford & Miguel A. Costa-Gomes & Nagore Iriberri, 2013. "Structural Models of Nonequilibrium Strategic Thinking: Theory, Evidence, and Applications," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 51(1), pages 5-62, March.
    6. David Colander, 2007. "Edgeworth's Hedonimeter and the Quest to Measure Utility," Middlebury College Working Paper Series 0723, Middlebury College, Department of Economics.
    7. Andrew Caplin & Mark Dean & Paul W. Glimcher & Robb B. Rutledge, 2010. "Measuring Beliefs and Rewards: A Neuroeconomic Approach," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 125(3), pages 923-960.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ahmet Ak & Oner Gumus, 2019. "The Possible Effects of Personal Income Tax and Value Added Tax on Consumer Behaviors," Papers 1910.03141, arXiv.org.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ingebjørg Kristoffersen, 2010. "The Metrics of Subjective Wellbeing: Cardinality, Neutrality and Additivity," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 86(272), pages 98-123, March.
    2. Cary Frydman & Nicholas Barberis & Colin Camerer & Peter Bossaerts & Antonio Rangel, 2012. "Using Neural Data to Test a Theory of Investor Behavior: An Application to Realization Utility," NBER Working Papers 18562, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Stavros A. Drakopoulos, 2020. "Pay Level Comparisons in Job Satisfaction Research and Mainstream Economic Methodology," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 825-842, March.
    4. Caplin, Andrew, 2014. "Rational inattention and revealed preference: The data-theoretic approach to economic modeling," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 295-305.
    5. Cronqvist, Henrik & Siegel, Stephan, 2014. "The genetics of investment biases," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(2), pages 215-234.
    6. Carl Christian von Weizsäcker, 2011. "Homo Oeconomicus Adaptivus – Die Logik des Handelns bei veränderlichen Präferenzen," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2011_10, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    7. Francesco GUALA, 2017. "Preferences: Neither Behavioural nor Mental," Departmental Working Papers 2017-05, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    8. Allais, Olivier & Etilé, Fabrice & Lecocq, Sébastien, 2015. "Mandatory labels, taxes and market forces: An empirical evaluation of fat policies," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 27-44.
    9. R. M. Harstad & R. Selten, 2014. "Bounded-rationality models:tasks to become intellectually competitive," Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP Voprosy Ekonomiki, issue 5.
    10. Makarewicz, Tomasz, 2021. "Traders, forecasters and financial instability: A model of individual learning of anchor-and-adjustment heuristics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 626-673.
    11. Ghosal, Sayantan & Dalton, Patricio, 2013. "Characterizing Behavioral Decisions with Choice Data," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 107, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    12. Anna Justyna Parzonko & Agata Balińska & Anna Sieczko, 2021. "Pro-Environmental Behaviors of Generation Z in the Context of the Concept of Homo Socio-Oeconomicus," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-18, March.
    13. Sergeyev, Dmitriy & Iovino, Luigi, 2018. "Central Bank Balance Sheet Policies Without Rational Expectations," CEPR Discussion Papers 13100, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    14. Abraham Aldama & Mateo Vásquez-Cortés & Lauren Elyssa Young, 2019. "Fear and citizen coordination against dictatorship," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 31(1), pages 103-125, January.
    15. Kohei Kubota & Akiko Kamesaka & Masao Ogaki & Fumio Ohtake, 2013. "Cultures, Worldviews, and Intergenerational Altruism," ERSA conference papers ersa13p758, European Regional Science Association.
    16. Becker, Gary S. & Rubinstein, Yona, 2011. "Fear and the response to terrorism: an economic analysis," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 121740, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Faruk Gul & Wolfgang Pesendorfer, 2009. "A Comment on Bernheim's Appraisal of Neuroeconomics," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 1(2), pages 42-47, August.
    18. Dieter Balkenborg & Rosemarie Nagel, 2016. "An Experiment on Forward vs. Backward Induction: How Fairness and Level k Reasoning Matter," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 17(3), pages 378-408, August.
    19. Daniel Woods & Mustafa Abdallah & Saurabh Bagchi & Shreyas Sundaram & Timothy Cason, 2022. "Network defense and behavioral biases: an experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(1), pages 254-286, February.
    20. Schmidt, Ulrich & Friedl, Andreas & Lima de Miranda, Katharina, 2015. "Social comparison and gender differences in risk taking," Kiel Working Papers 2011, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • A12 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Relation of Economics to Other Disciplines
    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • D87 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Neuroeconomics

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aea:jeclit:v:51:y:2013:i:4:p:1155-82. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Michael P. Albert (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aeaaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.