Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T19:01:58.305Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Not all folk-economic beliefs are best understood through our ancestral past

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 August 2018

Amit Bhattacharjee  and
Jason Dana
Amit Bhattacharjee
Affiliation:
Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, 3000 DR Rotterdam, Netherlands. [email protected]://www.rsm.nl/people/amit-bhattacharjee
Jason Dana
Affiliation:
Yale School of Management, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511. [email protected]://som.yale.edu/jason-dana
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We applaud Boyer & Petersen's (B&P's) approach to a fascinating topic. Their arguments against understanding folk-economic beliefs (FEBs) in terms of economic ignorance or specific biases, however, are overly pessimistic. Economic theory is the reason beliefs about such disparate phenomena are labeled “economic” and “folk.” More importantly, some FEBs are better understood by examining current rather than ancestral contexts of exchange.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 41 , 2018 , e163
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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

Bhattacharjee, A., Dana, J. & Baron, J. (2017) Anti-profit beliefs: How people neglect the societal benefits of profit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 113(5):671–96.Google Scholar
Caplan, B. (2007) The myth of the rational voter: Why democracies choose bad policies. Princeton University Press. [Original hardcover edition]Google Scholar