to renege on their agreement, and cool-headed rational agents are not harmed at
all. Behavioral science can help inform what sorts of mistakes might be corrected
this way.
New Foundations
In a final, brief section of the book, we include two papers that take behavioral
economics in new directions. The first is case-based decision theory (Gilboa and
Schmeidler 1995 and in this volume). Because of the powerful influence of deci-
sion theory (à la Ramsey, de Finetti, and Savage), economists are used to thinking
of risky choices as inevitably reflecting a probability-weighted average of the util-
ity of their possible consequences. The case-based approach starts from different
primitives. It treats a choice situation as a “case” that has degrees of similarity to
previous cases. Actions in the current case are evaluated by a sum or average of
the outcomes of the same action in previous cases, weighted by the similarity of
those previous cases to the current one. Cased-based theory substitutes the psy-
chology of probability of future outcomes for a psychology of similarity with past
cases.
The primitive process of case comparison is widely used in cognitive science
and is probably a better representation of how choices are made in many domains
than is probability-weighted utility evaluation. In hiring new faculty members or
choosing graduate students, you probably don’t talk in terms of utilities and prob-
abilities. Instead, it is irresistible to compare a candidate to others who are similar
and who did well or poorly. Case-based reasoning may be just as appealing in
momentous
decisions, like choosing a presidential ticket (Lloyd Bentsen’s “I
knew John Kennedy, and you’re no John Kennedy”) or managing international
conflict (“Will fighting the drug war in Colombia lead to another Vietnam?”). Ex-
plicitly case-based approaches are also widely used in the economy. Agents base
a list price for a house on the selling prices of nearby
houses that are similar
(“comparables”). “Nearest-neighbor” techniques
based on similarity are also
used in credit-scoring and other kinds of evaluations.
Another promising new direction is the study of emotion, which has boomed in
recent years (see Loewenstein and Lerner 2001, for a review of this literature with
a special focus on its implications for decision making). Damasio (1994) found
that people with relatively minor emotional impairments
have trouble making
decisions and, when they do, they often make disastrous ones.
Other research
shows that what appears to be deliberative decision
making may actually be
driven by gut-level emotions or drives, then rationalized as a thoughtful decision
(Wegner and Wheatley 1999). Loewenstein (1996 and in this volume, and 2000)
discusses the possibilities and challenges from incorporating emotions into eco-
nomic models. Behavioral economics is taking many other new directions that,
we hope, will provide more than adequate content for a sequel to this volume in
the not-too-distant future. One such thrust is the study of “hedonics” (e.g., Kah-
neman, Diener, and Schwartz 1999; Kahneman, Wakker and Sarin 1997). Hedo-
nics begins by expanding the notion of utility. In the neoclassical view, utility is
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: