Decision‐making and Neuroeconomics

Abstract

Decision‐making is the process of choosing one out of several alternatives. The study of decision‐making is inherently multidisciplinary and can be approached from many different angles. Traditional accounts in economics and biology have a normative flavour and prescribe, rather than describe decision‐making. Recently, however, efforts in psychology and behavioural ecology have resulted in the development of theories with higher descriptive validity. Furthermore, neuroeconomics is a new interdisciplinary field that combines contributions from economics, biology and psychology and aims to identify a biologically valid, mechanistic, mathematical and behavioural theory of choice and exchange. Recent neurophysiological advances have further deepened our understanding of the mechanistic implementation of a decision in the brain. Key Concepts Utility function : A mathematical function that models the relationship between an objective measure of a commodity (such as money) and the subjective value or desirability of that commodity. The utility function is often assumed to be concave, which is supposed to underly risk aversion. Risk attitude : Animals and humans are almost never risk neutral, i.e. when choosing between a very risky and a less risky (or even certain) option, most organisms prefer the less risky option ( risk aversion ) even if the payoff of both options is identical, or even better for the risky option. Occasionally, some individuals systematically prefer the more risky option ( risk proneness ). Expected utility theory : Normatively flavoured model in economics that tries to prescribe how humans should make decisions under risk. It is assumed that decision‐makers compute the probability‐weighted sum of the utilities of all possible outcomes, integrate them with their current asset, and then choose the option the highest expected utility in final assets. Discounted utility theory : Similar model to expected utility, but for decisions in time. The weighting factor in discounted utility theory is not probability, but a function of the delay between choice and consumption. Game theory : Framework to formalize choice behaviour involving multiple interacting decision‐makers. A game allows to isolate and investigate in a controlled environment a limited set of premises of economic decision theory. Prospect theory : Alternative theory to expected utility theory with higher descriptive validity. It is assumed that outcomes of a decision are evaluated with respect to changes in wealth (gains versus losses), not in final states. Furthermore, the utility function is concave in the domain of gains, and convex in the domain of losses, and steeper for losses than for gains. Choice heuristic : A simple decision rule, or set of rules, that humans and animals apply to make decisions in complex environments. Optimal foraging theory : Based on the assumption that evolution should have favoured the development of decision mechanisms that maximize Darwinian fitness, optimal foraging theory aims to explore animal behaviour from an optimal choice perspective. Neuroeconomics : Interdisciplinary field that attempts to identify a biologically valid, mechanistic, mathematical and behavioural theory of choice and exchange.

An Exploratory Study on Corporate Governance From Neuro-Governance Lenses in the Malaysian Context

“…Traditional economic theories are typically concerned with optimal allocation of scarce resources. This assumption means that all economic decisions should reflect the principle of utility maximization by optimal allocation or consumption of scarce resources ( Kalenscher, 2009 ; Sarfraz et al, 2021 ).…”

“…Risks and uncertainties are ubiquitous in human decision-making ( Camerer et al, 2004 ). Most human decisions are associated with certain risks to achieve their desired outcomes and returns ( Kalenscher, 2009 ). Risks and uncertainties primarily come from humans’ lack of opportunities and abilities to access and integrate all necessary information to predict future decision outcomes precisely and accurately ( Platt and Huettel, 2008 ; Shah et al, 2021 ).…”

“… Kalenscher (2009) discovered that most people are not risk-neutral when they make decisions under risks. They would systematically prefer lowest risk options (risk-averse) even though both options offer the same expected payoff.…”

“…Furthermore, some people would systematically prefer risky options like gambling, because risky options could result in highest returns. Therefore, Kalenscher (2009) suggested that humans are inherently risk-seeker or risk-averse. This research finding is somehow consistent with the principle of personality traits toward risk attitudes, because different people have different risk attitudes ( Kalenscher and Pennartz, 2008 ).…”

Attitude toward health insurance in developing countries from a decision-making perspective.

“…It has long been recognized that people discount future rewards and benefits, that is, they consider future rewards and benefits less attractive than the same rewards and benefits available immediately (Ersner-Hershfield, Wimmer, & Knutson, 2009; Fishburn & Rubinstein, 1982; Frederick, Loewenstein, & O’Donoghue, 2002; Green, Fristoe, & Myerson, 1994; Green & Myerson, 1996; Green, Myerson, & McFadden, 1997; Kalenscher, 2009; Kalenscher, Ohmann, & Güntürkün, 2006; Kalenscher & Pennartz, 2008; Kalenscher & Tobler, 2008; Kirby & Herrnstein, 1995; Koopmans, 1960; Laibson, 1997; Lancaster, 1963; Rachlin, Raineri, & Cross, 1991; Samuelson, 1937). Decisions over time and the decreased attractiveness of a delayed reward relative to an immediately available reward has been captured by economic theory already more than 70 years ago (Samuelson, 1937).…”