[Paleopsych] Economist: Economics focus: Mind games
checker at panix.com
Mon Jan 31 15:54:34 UTC 2005
Economics focus: Mind games
Can studying the human brain revolutionise economics?
ALTHOUGH Plato compared the human soul to a chariot pulled by the two
horses of reason and emotion, modern economics has mostly been a
one-horse show. It has been obsessed with reason. In decisions from
how much to produce to whether to save and invest, humans have been
assumed to be coolly rational calculators of their own self-interest.
Over the past few years, however, evidence from psychology has
persuaded many economists that reason does not always have its way.
Now, judging from a series of presentations at the American Economic
Association meetings in Philadelphia last weekend, a burgeoning new
field dubbed "neuroeconomics" seems poised to provide fresh insights
on how the two horses together produce economic behaviour.
The current bout of research is made possible by the arrival of new
technologies such as functional magnetic-resonance imaging, which
allows second-by-second observation of brain activity. At several
American universities, economists and their collaborators in the
neurosciences have been placing human subjects in such brain scanners
and asking them to perform a variety of economic tasks and games.
For example, the idea that humans compute the "expected value" of
future events is central to many economic models. Whether people will
invest in shares or buy insurance depends on how they estimate the
odds of future events weighted by the gains and losses in each case.
Your pension, for example, might have a very low expected value if
there is a large probability that bonds and shares will plunge just
before you retire.
Brian Knutson, of Stanford University, carried out one recent
brain-scan experiment to understand how humans compute such things.
Subjects were asked to perform a task, in this case pressing a button
during a short interval in which a certain shape was flashed on to a
screen. In some trials, the subjects could win up to $5 if successful,
while in others they would have to defend against a $5 loss. Before
presenting the target, the researchers signalled to subjects which
kind of trial they were in.
Brain activity in certain neural systems seemed to reveal a strong
correlation with the amount of money at stake. Moreover, the prospects
of gains and losses activated different parts of the brain.
Traditional economists had long thought--or assumed--that the prospect
of a $1,000 gain could compensate you for an equally likely loss of
the same size. In subsequent trials, subjects were given another
signal: one that provided an estimate of the odds of success. That
allowed the researchers to identify the regions of the brain used for
recognising an amount of money and for estimating the probability of
winning (or losing) it. Having identified these regions, the hope is
that future work can measure how the brain performs in situations such
as share selection, gambling or deciding to participate in a pension
David Laibson, an economist at Harvard University, thinks that such
experiments underscore the big role that expectations play in a
person's well-being. Economists have usually assumed that people's
well-being, or "utility", depends on their level of consumption, but
it might be that changes in consumption, especially unexpected
downward ones, as in these experiments, can be especially unpleasant.
Mr Laibson's own work tries to solve a different riddle: why people
seem to apply vastly different discount rates to immediate and
short-term rewards compared with rewards occurring well into the
future. People tend much to prefer, say, $100 now to $115 next week,
but they are indifferent between $100 a year from now and $115 in a
year and a week. In one recent experiment, noted in our science
section on October 30th, Mr Laibson and others found that the brain's
response to short-term riches (in this case, gift certificates of $15
or $20) occurs largely in the limbic system, a region that governs
emotion. By contrast, the prospect of rewards farther into the future
triggers the prefrontal cortex, which is often associated with reason
and calculation. Thus, choosing immediate economic gratification, by
spending excessively on credit cards or not saving enough even though
you "know better", could be a sign that the limbic system is in
charge. Government policies, such as forced savings or "cooling off"
periods for buying property or cars, may be one remedy.
And then there is trust and deception. Colin Camerer, of the
California Institute of Technology, has conducted experiments in which
brain-scanned participants play strategic games with anonymous
partners. In these, a subject chooses his own actions and also tries
to anticipate the choices of the other player. When players are doing
the best that they can to "win" the game by anticipating their
opponents' moves, their brains tend to show a high degree of
co-ordination between the "thinking" and the "feeling" regions.
Economic equilibrium, by this measure, is an identifiable "state of
Don't let it go to your head
Some neuroeconomists claim that such brain-scanning experiments are
the start of a revolution in economics. No longer will economists rely
on crude statistical models of how people behave in response to a
policy change, such as an interest-rate rise or a tax increase.
Instead, they will be able to peer directly into the brain to predict
One day, perhaps; but much work remains. Identifying the parts of the
brain that control economic actions is one thing. Harder tasks include
determining how neural systems work together to create behaviour, and
how wide is the variation in brain patterns between different people.
Then there are age-old questions of free will: is your failure to save
for old age simply a lifestyle choice, or is it down to faulty brain
circuits? Neuroeconomics is already providing fascinating conclusions.
But Plato's chariot will remain an alluring explanation for a while
More information about the paleopsych