Foundations of Neuroeconomics: From Philosophy to Practice

• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0060298
• Publication Date: 2008-11-21T17:32:05Z
• Authors: John A Clithero; Dharol Tankersley; Scott A Huettel
• Keywords: Neuroeconomics; Mainstream; Argument (complex analysis)

Evidence that neuroscience improves our understanding of economic phenomena [1–4] comes from a broad array novel experimental findings, including demonstrations brain regions guide responses to fair [5,6] and unfair [7] social interactions, resolve uncertainty during decision making [8], track loss aversion [9] subjective value [10], encode willingness pay [11,12] reward error signals [13,14]. Yet, neuroeconomics has been characterized as faddish juxtaposition, not an integration, disparate domains [15]. More damningly, critics have charged economics are fundamentally incompatible [16], argument resonates with many scientists. Economics thrived for centuries in the absence some economists argue existing research is useful mainstream [17,18].

We reject fundamental charge cannot influence modeling, even principle, focus on two criticisms integrating these fields, which we label Behavioral Sufficiency Emergent Phenomenon arguments. We show here arguments contain hidden assumptions render them unsound within practical constraints science.

We go explore interrelated questions: there unique niche field neuroeconomics, and, if so, what its proper foundational principles? do rely recent systems support behavior nor recount valid concerns about potential technological neuroscience. Rather, attempt clarify necessary foundations [19–21], identify core principles, Mechanistic Convergence Biological Plausibility.

We then ask how information neural mechanisms predictive explanatory power models. Importantly, points raise recapitulate both cognitive revolution [22] subsequent intertwining psychology [23,24]. believe seemingly sciences much gain each other.