Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:00:29.714Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Introduction: Neuroeconomics of Learning and Decision

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 January 2015

Antoine Billot ,
Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde  and
Anne Corcos
Antoine Billot
Affiliation:
Université Paris-2 - LEM
Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde
Affiliation:
Université Paris-2 - LEM
Anne Corcos
Affiliation:
Université Paris-2 - LEM
Get access

Extract

Neuroeconomics is not in 2012 a unified field, after a decade of identifiable existence. It is not clear whether it should be defined as the “old” field of neurosciences of decision-making, as part of the most recent social neurosciences, or as something else, more loosely tapping jointly into experimental economics, decision-theory and cognitive and affective neuroscience. Its boundaries then are vague, multi-layered, and it will be relatively arbitrary to restrict it to coherent confines as we will try to do. Moreover, the problem that affects the definition of neuroeconomics is not only one of extension, but one of characterizing its purposes. Is its more relevant import modeling, new facts-finding, epistemological revolution or restoration inside economics?

Type
Research Article
Information
Recherches Économiques de Louvain/ Louvain Economic Review , Volume 78 , Issue 3-4 , December 2012 , pp. 5 - 11
Copyright
Copyright © Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de recherches économiques et sociales 2012 

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

Bohnet, I. and Zeckhauser, R. (2004). Trust, risk and betrayal. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 55, 467–484.Google Scholar
Bourgeois-Gironde, S. (2010). Regret and the rationality of choice. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B., 365, 249–258.Google Scholar
Camerer, C. (2007). Neuroeconomics: Using Neuroscience to Make Economic Predictions. The Economic Journal, 117, 26–42.Google Scholar
Camille, N. et al. (2004). The involvement of the orbitofrontal cortex in the experience of regret. Science, 304, 1167–1170.Google Scholar
Devetag, G. and Warglien, M. (2004) Games and phone numbers: Do short-term memory bounds affect strategic behavior? Journal of Economic Psychology, 24, 189–202.Google Scholar
Eckel, C. and Wilson, R. (2004). Is Trust a Risky Decision? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 55, 447–465.Google Scholar
Erev, I. and Roth, A. (1998). Predicting how people play games: Reinforcement learning in experimental games with unique, mixed strategy equilibria. American Economic Review, 88, 848–881.Google Scholar
Glimcher, P. (2003). Decisions, Uncertainty and the Brain – The science of neuroeconomics. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hintzman, D.L. (1986). Schema Abstraction in a Multipletrace Memory Model. Psychological Review, 93, 411–428.Google Scholar
Koechlin, E., Ody, C., and Kouneiher, F. (2003). The Architecture of Cognitive Control in the Human Prefrontal Cortex. Science, 302, 1181–1185.Google Scholar
Ross, D. (2008). Two styles of neuroeconomics. Economics and Philosophy, 24, 473–483.Google Scholar
Sanfey, A, Rilling, J, Aronson, J, Nystrom, L, Cohen, J (2003). The Neural basis of economic decision-making in the ultimatum game. Science, 300, 1755–1758 Google Scholar