Information processing and decision-making: Evidence from the brain sciences and implications for economics
This article assesses the potential benefits of including findings from neurobiology in economic decision-making models. First, we emphasize that the evidence supports both ‘expected utility-like’ theory and ‘Bayesian-like’ information acquisition theory. Second, we explain that inferences and representations are subject to physiological limitations that affect decision making. We report in particular two ‘mechanical’ models developed in neuroscience to represent neural data and choices. We then propose two economic models that incorporate physiological limitations into an expected utility framework. Interestingly, these two models provide foundations for those developed in neuroscience (which emerge endogenously in our framework) and provide further predictions that can be tested in principle. This allows us to discuss the benefits of bringing together evidence from neuroscience and economic modeling.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Glimcher, Paul W. & Dorris, Michael C. & Bayer, Hannah M., 2005. "Physiological utility theory and the neuroeconomics of choice," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 213-256, August.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:83:y:2012:i:3:p:292-310. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.