IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jbioec/v24y2022i3d10.1007_s10818-022-09330-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ordinaries 10

Author

Listed:
  • Terence C. Burnham

    (Chapman University)

  • Jay Phelan

    (UCLA)

Abstract

Neoclassical and behavioral economics disagree over the manner in which people make risky decisions. Neoclassical economics assumes that people make good, consistent risky decisions. Behavioral economics argues that people are inconsistent in decisions involving risks. Biology suggests that, in ancestral settings, people were under selection to behave “as if” they were maximizing, in a manner consistent with the neoclassical economic model – but maximizing a different feature. In evolutionarily novel settings such as cities, however, people will make risky decisions that are inconsistent and sometimes self-destructive.

Suggested Citation

  • Terence C. Burnham & Jay Phelan, 2022. "Ordinaries 10," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 181-202, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jbioec:v:24:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s10818-022-09330-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s10818-022-09330-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10818-022-09330-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10818-022-09330-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Jeffrey Carpenter & Justin Garcia & J. Lum, 2011. "Dopamine receptor genes predict risk preferences, time preferences, and related economic choices," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 233-261, June.
    2. Tianming Yang & Michael N. Shadlen, 2007. "Probabilistic reasoning by neurons," Nature, Nature, vol. 447(7148), pages 1075-1080, June.
    3. Peter N. C. Mohr & Guido Biele & Hauke R. Heekeren, 2010. "Neural Processing of Risk," SFB 649 Discussion Papers SFB649DP2010-065, Sonderforschungsbereich 649, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany.
    4. Robson, Arthur J., 1996. "A Biological Basis for Expected and Non-expected Utility," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 397-424, February.
    5. Robson, Arthur J. & Samuelson, Larry, 2019. "Evolved attitudes to idiosyncratic and aggregate risk in age-structured populations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 44-81.
    6. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Thaler, Richard H, 1987. "The January Effect," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 197-201, Summer.
    8. Terence C. Burnham, 2016. "Economics and evolutionary mismatch: humans in novel settings do not maximize," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 195-209, October.
    9. Nax, Heinrich H. & Newton, Jonathan, 2019. "Risk attitudes and risk dominance in the long run," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 179-184.
    10. Nicholas C. Barberis, 2013. "Thirty Years of Prospect Theory in Economics: A Review and Assessment," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 173-196, Winter.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Khan, Abhimanyu, 2022. "Expected utility versus cumulative prospect theory in an evolutionary model of bargaining," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    2. Robson, Arthur & Samuelson, Larry, 2022. "The evolution of risk attitudes with fertility thresholds," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    3. Moshe Levy, 2022. "An evolutionary explanation of the Allais paradox," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 32(5), pages 1545-1574, November.
    4. Terence C. Burnham & Jay Phelan, 2022. "Ordinaries 9: How to write a biological economics article," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 117-131, July.
    5. José F. Tudón M., 2019. "Perception, utility, and evolution," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 7(2), pages 191-208, December.
    6. Shoshan, Vered & Hazan, Tamir & Plonsky, Ori, 2023. "BEAST-Net: Learning novel behavioral insights using a neural network adaptation of a behavioral model," OSF Preprints kaeny, Center for Open Science.
    7. Carolin Bock & Maximilian Schmidt, 2015. "Should I stay, or should I go? – How fund dynamics influence venture capital exit decisions," Review of Financial Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(1), pages 68-82, November.
    8. Hong, Yan-Zhen & Su, Yi-Ju & Chang, Hung-Hao, 2023. "Analyzing the relationship between income and life satisfaction of Forest farm households - a behavioral economics approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    9. Felici, Marco & Kenny, Geoff & Friz, Roberta, 2023. "Consumer savings behaviour at low and negative interest rates," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    10. Klein, Martin & Deissenroth, Marc, 2017. "When do households invest in solar photovoltaics? An application of prospect theory," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 270-278.
    11. Dominika Czyz & Karolina Safarzynska, 2023. "Catastrophic Damages and the Optimal Carbon Tax Under Loss Aversion," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 85(2), pages 303-340, June.
    12. Alex Imas & Sally Sadoff & Anya Samek, 2017. "Do People Anticipate Loss Aversion?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(5), pages 1271-1284, May.
    13. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.
    14. Alekseev, Aleksandr & Sokolov, Mikhail V., 2021. "How to measure the average rate of change?," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 43-59.
    15. Chen Ying & Härdle Wolfgang K. & He Qiang & Majer Piotr, 2018. "Risk related brain regions detection and individual risk classification with 3D image FPCA," Statistics & Risk Modeling, De Gruyter, vol. 35(3-4), pages 89-110, July.
    16. Carpentier, A. & Reboud, X., 2018. "Why farmers consider pesticides the ultimate in crop protection: economic and behavioral insights," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277528, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Thomas J. Brennan & Andrew W. Lo & Ruixun Zhang, 2018. "Variety Is the Spice of Life: Irrational Behavior as Adaptation to Stochastic Environments," Quarterly Journal of Finance (QJF), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 8(03), pages 1-39, September.
    18. Bryce McLaughlin & Jann Spiess, 2022. "Algorithmic Assistance with Recommendation-Dependent Preferences," Papers 2208.07626, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    19. Mariya Burdina & Scott Hiller, 2021. "When Falling Just Short is a Good Thing: The Effect of Past Performance on Improvement," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 22(7), pages 777-798, October.
    20. Häckel, Björn & Pfosser, Stefan & Tränkler, Timm, 2017. "Explaining the energy efficiency gap - Expected Utility Theory versus Cumulative Prospect Theory," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 414-426.

    More about this item

    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:kap:jbioec:v:24:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s10818-022-09330-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.