Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T06:04:00.771Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ON AN EVOLUTIONARY FOUNDATION OF NEUROECONOMICS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2008

Burkhard C. Schipper
Burkhard C. Schipper*
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Neuroeconomics focuses on brain imaging studies mapping neural responses to choice behaviour. Economic theory is concerned with choice behaviour but it is silent on neural activities. We present a game theoretic model in which players are endowed with an additional structure – a simple “nervous system” – and interact repeatedly in changing games. The nervous system constrains information processing functions and behavioural functions. By reinterpreting results from evolutionary game theory (Germano 2007), we suggest that nervous systems can develop to “function well” in exogenously changing strategic environments. We present an example indicating that an analogous conclusion fails if players can influence endogenously their environment.

Type
Essay
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 24 , Issue 3: Neuroeconomics , November 2008 , pp. 495 - 513
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

Benhabib, J. and Bisin, A.. 2005. Modeling internal commitment mechanisms and self-control: a neuroeconomics approach to consumption-saving decisions. Games and Economic Behavior 52: 460–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernheim, B. D. and Rangel, A.. 2004. Addiction and cue-triggered decision processes. American Economic Review 94: 1558–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brocas, I. and Carillo, J. D.. 2008a. The brain as a hierarchical organization. American Economic Review, forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brocas, I. and Carillo, J. D.. 2008b. Theories of the mind. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 98: 175–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cabrales, A. and Sobel, J.. 1992. On the limit points of discrete selection dynamics. Journal of Economic Theory 57: 407–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G. and Prelec, D.. 2005. Neuroeconomics: how neuroscience can inform economics. Journal of Economic Literature 43: 9–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaplin, A. and Dean, M.. 2008. Dopamine, reward prediction error, and economics. Quarterly Journal of Economics, forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. D. and Tong, F.. 2001. The face of controversy. Science 293: 2405–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Darwin, C. 1859. The origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. New York: Penguin, 1958.Google Scholar
Dunbar, R. I. M. and Shultz, S.. 2007. Evolution in the social brain. Science 317: 1344–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Exner, S. 1894. Entwurf zu einer physiologischen Erklärung der psychologischen Erscheinungen. Leipzig, Wien: F. Deuticke.Google Scholar
Fudenberg, D. and Levine, D.. 2006. A dual self model of impulse control. American Economic Review 96: 1449–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gazzaniga, M. S., Ivry, R. B. and Mangun, G. R.. 2002. Cognitive neuroscience. The biology of the mind, 2nd edn.New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Germano, F. 2007. Stochastic evolution of rules for playing finite normal form games. Theory and Decision 62: 311–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M. and the ABC Research Group. 2000. Simple heuristics that make us smart, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Glimcher, P. W. 2003. Decisions, uncertainty, and the brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glimcher, P. W. and Rustichini, A.. 2004. Neuroeconomics: the consilience of brain and decision. Science 306: 447–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Güth, W. and Yaari, M.. 1992. Explaining reciprocal behavior in a simple strategic game: an evolutionary approach. In Explaining process and change – approaches to evolutionary economics, ed. Witt, U.23–34. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Harbaugh, W. T., Krause, K., and Berry, T.. 2001. On the development of rational choice behavior. American Economic Review 91: 1539–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haug, H. 1987. Brain sizes, surfaces, and neuronal sizes of the cortex cerebri: a stereological investigation of man and his variability and a comparison with some mammals (primates, whales, marsupials, insectivores, and one elephant). American Journal of Anatomy 180: 126–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kosfeld, M., Heinrichs, M., Zak, P., Fischbacher, U. and Fehr, E.. 2005. Oxytocin increases trust in humans. Nature 435: 673–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Livnat, A. and Pippenger, N.. 2006. An optimal brain can be composed of conflicting agents. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 103: 3108–202.Google Scholar
McCabe, K. A. 2008. Neuroeconomics and the economic sciences. Economics and Philosophy. 24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robson, A. and Kaplan, H. S.. 2003. The evolution of human life-expectancy and intelligence in hunter-gatherer societies. American Economic Review 93: 150–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, G. and Dicke, U.. 2005. Evolution of the brain and intelligence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9: 250–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schierwater, B. 2005. My favourite animal, trichoplax adhaerens. Bioessays 27: 1294–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weibull, J. 1995. Evolutionary game theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zak, P., Kurzban, R. and Matzner, W. T.. 2005. Oxytocin is associated with human trustworthiness. Hormones and Behavior 48: 522–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed