Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #neuroeconomics
Most recents (3)
Bummer! The reliability of individual economic rationality measurements is moderate to pooršHere's a summary š§µof our recent paper @PNASNews /w @lucalupken, Nils LĆ¼schow, and @kalenscher. #neuroeconomics @INSEAD @HHU_de cc @veredkurtz @vectornomist
pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnā¦
pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnā¦
Background: Research in psych, behav. & neuroecon searches individual differences & correlates of rationality. Indices of revealed preference consistency (GARP) are used as ad hoc measurement for the supposedly latent concept of rationality, often interpreted as psych. construct. 
The identification of robust correlates requires precise measures (c Hedge et al.). The goal of this project was hence to probe the reliability of individual rationality measurements. link.springer.com/article/10.375ā¦
New work out in PNAS with @BlairShevlin @stephsmithphd and Jan Hausfeld! We find that high-value decisions are both fast AND accurate contradicting the ideas of diminishing value sensitivity and satisficing. Summary thread below. #neuroeconomics
doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2ā¦ 1/10
doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2ā¦ 1/10
We already knew that decisions between high-value foods, gambles, and other rewards are made quickly. But thereās a debate about why. Some argue that it is adaptive ā satisficing makes sense when all the options are good enough. Others think it is due to increased noise. 2/10
We tested these explanations across three tasks. In each, people made binary choices and we assessed both their response times (RT) and accuracy as a function of the value (both subjective and objective) of the options. The results may surprise youā¦
3/10
3/10
Thrilled to share our last paper! In this review article, we discuss why the description-experience gap may constitute a challenge to #neuroeconomics (specifically when comparing human and monkey findings)
with @PagerFM & @FCerrotti
preprint š psyarxiv.com/9s23f/
with @PagerFM & @FCerrotti
preprint š psyarxiv.com/9s23f/
In description paradigms, payoffs and probabilities (i.e. the decision variables) are given explicitly and symbolically. In experience paradigms, decision variables are never stated and information is acquired a via trial-by-trial feedbacks.
The analysis of the two paradigms results in systematic behavioural discrepancies (the description-experience "gap"). For instance, subjective probabilities follow different deformations and the opposite of loss aversion (loss neglect) is often observed in decision by experience
