Search results

Neuroeconomics is the study of how the brain makes economic decisions. By its nature neuroeconomics studies the mechanisms of decision-making, assumed to be computational, in order to better understand the strategies people use and the choices that people make. The focus of this book is how neuroeconomics connects to health economics in a way that improves our understanding of health care and treatment decisions. This is natural for several reasons. First, the brain and the body are intimately connected to each other and the health of one depends on the other. Second, the health system is inherently about decisions. Decisions to stay healthy, decisions to diagnose illness, decisions to treat, decisions to invest in new treatments, decisions to insure, and decisions to pay. Finally, these decisions can be difficult, as the media's consistent attention to this area attests. In light of this, for this volume we chose to include chapters that review basic research on emotion or social preference that have direct relevance to decisions in health economics. We have also included chapters that refer more specifically to some aspect of people's health care or treatment decisions. In the following we indicate the chapters within each topic area. Although many chapters could arguably fit in multiple categories, we have listed each chapter only once and without particular order.

Purpose – This chapter addresses the nature, formalization, and neural bases of (affective) social ties and discusses the relevance of ties for health economics. A social tie is defined as an affective weight attached by an individual to the well-being of another individual (‘utility interdependence’). Ties can be positive or negative, and symmetric or asymmetric between individuals. Characteristic of a social tie, as conceived of here, is that it develops over time under the influence of interaction, in contrast with a trait like altruism. Moreover, a tie is not related to strategic behavior such as reputation formation but seen as generated by affective responses.

Methodology/approach – A formalization is presented together with some supportive evidence from behavioral experiments. This is followed by a discussion of related psychological constructs and the presentation of suggestive existing neural findings. To help prepare the grounds for a model-based neural analysis some speculations on the neural networks involved are provided, together with suggestions for future research.

Findings – Social ties are not only found to be important from an economic viewpoint, it is also shown that they can be modeled and related to neural substrates.

Originality/value of the chapter – By providing an overview of the economic research on social ties and connecting it with the broader behavioral and neuroeconomics literature, the chapter may contribute to the development of a neuroeconomics of social ties.

Purpose – The aim of the chapter is to show how two important facts of physicians’ behavior, (i) their tendency to “create” the demand for medical practices, and (ii) their delay and reluctance in using new treatments and therapies, can be explained with the lens of the neuroeconomics research on the neural and behavioral basis of regret.

Methodology – This chapter adopts a neuroeconomics perspective on decision-making, asking how the brain represents values and generates emotional states, which consequently influence choices. In the line of recent work on emotion-based decision-making, we expect to be able to characterize the brain areas underlying the studied processes and to specify the functional relationship between rational decision-making and the emotional influences that modulate these decisional processes.

Originality – Neurobiological approaches can contribute significantly to a better understanding of the cognitive and emotional underpinnings of medical decision-making, from how physicians might evaluate and anticipate the effect of alternative therapies, to how patients might anticipate future consequences of their health choice. This can explain some features of the doctor–patient relationship which are not consistent with simple maximization models.

Findings – Our findings suggest that physicians’ behavior can be often explained by regret avoidance. Likewise, they suggest that physicians play as actual agents when they make medical decisions that will affect the future well-being of their patients.

Research limitations – We limited our analysis to the potential role of anticipated regret; therefore, this chapter neglects many important factors of the health sector.

Purpose – This chapter discusses the role of emotion expression in decision-making. To understand connections between emotion and decision it is helpful first to differentiate between emotion experience and emotion expression. Understanding how emotion expression influences decision-making is important as a practical matter. However, in contrast to emotion experience, economic research has paid little attention to the significance of emotion expression in decision-making.

Approach – I review recent studies on emotion expression, paying specific attention to possible connections between emotion expression, punishment, fair economic exchange, and well-being.

Practical implications – In contrast to emotions, which are typically difficult to control, I suggest that opportunities for emotion expression can feasibly be manipulated through appropriately designed policies. I further suggest that this approach may have the ability to positively affect well-being and economic outcomes.

Value of the chapter – The chapter provides new perspectives on how policy-makers can benefit by understanding the effect of emotion expression in decision-making. The chapter also suggests future research to improve our understanding of emotion expression.

The awarding in October of 2002 of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics 1 Technically the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, established in 1968.1 to Daniel Kahneman and Vernon Smith might have profound implications for the survival of Homo economicus, which has long occupied a privileged place in the minds of economists and decision-making theorists. The species has endured many challenges and proven quite adaptable, changing to accommodate a cascade of findings inconsistent with its original conception. Homo economicus now faces a potentially more serious challenge: the resurgence of Homo sapiens, a more coherent and biologically grounded model for human decision-making, informed by theory and data from across the scientific spectrum.