Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T11:33:17.000Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

COMMENTS ON THE POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF NEUROECONOMICS FOR ECONOMIC THEORY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2008

Ran Spiegler
Ran Spiegler*
Affiliation:
University College, London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this short note I speculate about the various ways in which the study of neurological aspects of decision making could be fruitful for economic modelling.

Type
Essay
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 24 , Issue 3: Neuroeconomics , November 2008 , pp. 515 - 521
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

Athey, S. and Ellison, G.. 2007. Position auctions with consumer search. Mimeo. Cambridge, MA: MIT, Press.Google Scholar
Becker, G. and Murphy, K.. 1988. A theory of rational addiction. Journal of Political Economy 96: 675–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benhabib, J. and Bisin, A.. 2008. Choice and process: theory ahead of measurement. In Perspectives on the future of economics: Positive and normative foundations. Handbook of economic methodology, Vol. 1, ed. Caplin, A. and Schotter, A.. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bernheim, D. and Rangel, A.. 2004. Addiction and cue-triggered decision processes. American Economic Review 94: 1558–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eliaz, K. and Ok, E.. 2006. Indifference or indecisiveness? Choice theoretic foundations of incomplete preferences. Games and Economic Behavior 56: 61–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eliaz, K. and Spiegler, R.. 2007. Consideration sets and competition marketing. Mimeo. London: UCL and Brown University.Google Scholar
Ellison, G. and Fisher-Ellison, S.. 2005. Lessons about markets from the internet. Journal of Economic Perspectives 19: 139–58.Google Scholar
Gul, F. and Pesendorfer, W.. 2005. The case for mindless economics. In Perspectives on the future of economics: Positive and normative foundations. Handbook of economic methodology, Vol. 1, ed. Caplin, A. and Schotter, A.. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gul, F. and Pesendorfer, W.. 2007. Harmful addiction. Review of Economic Studies 74: 147–72.Google Scholar
Harrison, G. 2008. Neuroeconomics: a critical reconsideration. Economics and Philosophy 24.Google Scholar
Roth, A. 2006. Repugnance as a constraint on markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives 21: 37–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubinstein, A. 1989. The Electronic Mail Game: A Game with Almost Common Knowledge. American Economic Review 79: 385–91.Google Scholar
Rubinstein, A. 2006. Comments on behavioral economics. In Advances in economic theory (2005 World Congress of the Econometric Society), Vol. II, ed. Blundell, R., Newey, W. K. and Persson, T., 246–54. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Salant, Y. and Rubinstein, A.. 2007. Some thoughts on the principle of revealed preferences. In Perspectives on the future of economics: Positive and normative foundations. Handbook of economic methodology, Vol. 1, ed. Caplin, A. and Schotter, A.. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sanfey, A., Rilling, J., Aronson, J., Nystrom, L. and Cohen, J.. 2003. The neural basis of economic decision-making in the ultimatum game. Science 300: 1755–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed