Title: Introduction: Bounded Rationality of Economic Man: New Frontiers in Evolutionary Psychology and Bioeconomics
Abstract: This special double issue of the Journal of Bioeconomics on ‘Bioeconomics, Law and Evolutionary Psychology’ takes an interdisciplinary approach to studying bounded rationality of economic man in its ecological, social and institutional environments. The contributors to the special issue come from different disciplines: economics, bioeconomics, psychology, and law. Their research interests involve behavioral decision making, evolutionary biology, law-and-economics/new institutional economics, bioeconomics, experimental economics, game theory, corporate law, risk management, artificial intelligence, and more. The special issue presents not only an interdisciplinary effort but also diverse methods of investigation. The laboratory experiments usually have a high degree of control and accuracy but are low in ecological validity. Theoretical modeling is high in generality but low in precision. Field studies possess a high ecological validity but are less controlled. In this issue, the diversity of methods used by these authors-- theoretical modeling (see Burnham, and Smith), computer simulations (see Dudey & Todd, Smith, and Wang in Landa and Wang), field work (Landa, in Landa & Wang), demographical analysis (Silverman & Case), and laboratory experiments (see Fiddick & Cummins, Saad & Gill, and Wang in Landa & Wang)-- all converge to highlight the importance of knowledge about Homo sapiens in helping us to understand Homo economicus. Mainstream economics and psychology In the center of the mainstream or standard (neoclassical) economic model of decision-making resides the anonymous rational man (Homo economicus) who performs omniscient probability calculations with unlimited cognitive resources, and maximizes expected utility in the face of scarce resources. This hypothetical rational being does all these feats in a world free of institutions and with zero transaction costs. New institutional economics, in the last forty years or so, has criticized mainstream economics and has incorporated concepts of bounded rationality, institutions, and transaction costs. (See Landa & Wang in this issue). In contrast to mainstream economics, psychologists often assume that human learning, memory, and decision-making are constrained by limited mental resources. In their article on the differences between psychological and economical perspectives of human decisions, Zwick, Erev & Budescu (1999, p. 6) wrote: ‘Economists assume that environmental resources are scarce but, ironically, consider the mental resources available to the actors whose behavior is modeled to be unlimited. Psychologists, on the other hand, have always been interested in studying the mechanisms that allow humans and other animals to cope with, and adapt to, an environment that is characterized by subjective information overload.’
Publication Year: 2001
Publication Date: 2001-01-01
Language: en
Type: article
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 1
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot