Economic Choices Among Different Groups According to the Cognitive Economics and Social Judgement Theory

Tuna Uslu

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ajap.20160506.20

| Peer-Reviewed

Economic Choices Among Different Groups According to the Cognitive Economics and Social Judgement Theory

Tuna Uslu

Published in American Journal of Applied Psychology (Volume 5, Issue 6)

Received: 31 October 2016 Accepted: 21 December 2016 Published: 31 December 2016

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Decision making, social judgement and human reasoning process is an important research area for experimental micro-economics. Social judgement happens with previous learning, reasoning and decision making processes and by the synchronized appearance of these cognitive functions, so the brain relates decision utility to anticipated and experienced utility. In the brain system, this neural synchronization is realized by the executive functions which seem to be located in the limbic system and frontal lobes. These neuroscientific researchs are also effective on social sciences and ethical discussions. This study generally provides examples from the relevant literature about the instruments used by the neurological applications to investigate the behaviours of individuals, how they are used to study interactions between individuals and how they can be used in modelling social dynamics as well as evaluating the effects of these studies on individuals and society. In this study, some behavioral perspectives on trust and reciprocity, fairness and altruism, justice and social norms were searched with the help of behavioral experiments presented in the game theory literature. The research part of the study includes the design, statistical results and findings of the experiment that we applied to the undergraduate students and public staff in Istanbul. The data was evaluated by ANOVA difference tests were conducted. The results of the analyses show that individuals don’t only try to behave rationally when they make economic judgements but also take decisions by involving their educations and social roles into the judgement processes. There are also significant differences between university students and public employees. The last part discusses the practical results of these studies and their possible effects on social sciences. One of the basic criticisms on the experimental studies of economic decision making is that the experiments in a laboratory environment may systematically vary from the behaviours in real life.

Published in	American Journal of Applied Psychology (Volume 5, Issue 6)
DOI	10.11648/j.ajap.20160506.20
Page(s)	104-110
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Cognitive Economics, Decision Making, Experimental Game Theory, Social Judgement, Ultimatum Game

References

[1]	Sanfey, A. G., Loewenstein, G., McClure, S. M. and Cohen J. D. (2006) Neuroeconomics: cross-currents in research on decision-making, TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences 10 (3), March.
[2]	Montague P. R., McClure, S. M. and York, M. K. (2004) The Neural Substrates of Reward Processing in Humans: The Modern Role of fMRI, Neuroscientist 10 (3), pp. 260–268.
[3]	Montague P. R., King-Casas B. and Cohen, J. D. (2006) Imaging Valuation Models in Human Choice, Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 29, pp. 417–48.
[4]	Fehr, E. and Schmidt, K. M. (1999) A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114 (3), pp. 817–868.
[5]	Uslu, T. (2015) Behavioral Game Theory in Organizational Context, International Conference on Modern Researchs in Management, Economics and Accounting, 27 July 2015, Istanbul, ISBN: 978-9944-0203-10-2.
[6]	Uslu, Tuna (2011) Neuroscientific Researches of Reasoning and Decision Making and the Effects on Business, Ethics and Cognitive Ergonomics, The Knowledge Economy, Avcı Ofset Matbaacılık-Istanbul, ISBN: 978-9944-0203-8-1, pp. 467-480.
[7]	Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, pp. 453-458.
[8]	Beugré, C. D. (2009) Exploring the neural basis of fairness: A model of neuro-organizational justice, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110, pp. 129-139.
[9]	Elbanna, S. and Child, J. (2007) Influences on strategic decision effectiveness, Strategic Management Journal, 28, pp. 431-453.
[10]	Hodgkinson, G. P. (2003) The interface of cognitive and industrial, work and organizational psychology, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, pp. 1-25.
[11]	Hammond, K. R., Stewart, T. R., Brehmer, B. and Steinmann, D. O. (1986). Social judgment theory, in H. Arkes and K. Hammond (eds.), Judgment and decision making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 56-76.
[12]	Byrnes, J. P. (1998). The nature and development of decision-making: A self regulation model. USA: Earlbaum Manwah NJ.
[13]	Geary, David C. (2005) The origin of mind: Evolution of brain, cognition, and general intelligence, first edition, American Physchology Association, Washington, p. 182.
[14]	Levitt, S. D. and List, J. A. (2007) What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21 (2), p. 154.
[15]	Güth W., Schmittberger, R. and Schwarze, B. (1982) An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. J Econ Behav Organ 3 (4): 367–388.
[16]	Thaler, R. H. (1988) Anomalies: The Ultimatum Game. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2, pp. 195–206.
[17]	Pillutla, M. M. and Murnighan, J. K. (1996). Unfairness, anger, and spite: Emotional rejections of ultimatum offers. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68, pp. 208-224.
[18]	Sanfey, A. G., Rilling, J. K., Aronson, J. A., Nystrom, L. E. and Cohen, J. D. (2003). The neural basis of economic decision-making in the Ultimatum Game. Science, 300, pp. 1755-1758.
[19]	Tabibnia, G., Satpute, A. B. and Lieberman, M. D. (2008) The sunny side of fairness preference for fairness activates reward circuitry (and disregarding unfairness activates self-control circuitry). Psychol. Sci. 19, pp. 339–347.
[20]	Hoffman, E., McCabe, K. and Smith, V. L. (1996) Social distance and other regarding behavior in dictator games. American Economic Review, 86, pp. 653–660.
[21]	Sanfey, A. G., Rilling, J. K., Aronson, J. A., Nystrom, L. E. and Cohen, J. D. (2004). The neural correlates of theory of mind within interpersonal Interactions, NeuroImage 22, pp. 1694-1703.
[22]	Camerer, C. F. (2003) Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction. Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, p. 56-90.
[23]	Güth, W. (1995). On ultimatum bargaining experiments-A personal review, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 27 (3), pp. 329-344.
[24]	Szolnoki, A., Perc, M. and Szabó, G. (2012) Defense mechanisms of empathetic players in the spatial ultimatum game. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 078701.
[25]	Corradi-Dell'Acqua, C., Civai, C., Rumiati, R. I. and Fink, G. R. (2013) Disentangling self- and fairness-related neural mechanisms involved in the ultimatum game: an fMRI study. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 8, pp. 424–431.
[26]	Rand, D. G., Tarnita, C. E., Ohtsuki, H. and Nowak, M. A. (2013) Evolution of fairness in the one-shot anonymous Ultimatum Game. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, pp. 2581–2586.
[27]	Güth, W. and Kocher, M. G. (2014) More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: Motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 108, pp. 396–409.
[28]	Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H., McElreath, R., Alvard, M., Barr, A., Ensminger, J., Henrich, N. S., Hill, K., Gil-White, F., Gurven, M., Marlowe, F. W., Patton, J. Q. and Tracer, D. (2005) Economic Man in Cross-Cultural Perspective: Ethnography and Experiments from 15 Small-Scale Societies, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28 (6), pp. 795-815.
[29]	Camerer, C. and Thaler, R. (1995) Anomalies: More Ultimatum and Dictator Games, Journal of Economic Perspectives 9 (2), pp. 209-219.
[30]	Slonim, R. and Roth, A. E. (1998). Learning in High Stakes Ultimatum Games: An Experiment in the Slovak Republic, Econometrica, 66 (3), pp. 569-96.
[31]	Cameron, L. A. (1999) Raising the Stakes in the Ultimatum Game: Experimental Evidence from Indonesia, Economic Inquiry, 37 (1), pp. 47-59.
[32]	Munier, B. and Zaharia, C. (2002) High Stakes and Acceptance Behavior in Ultimatum Bargaining: A Contribution from an International Experiment, Theory and Decision, 53 (3), pp. 187-207.
[33]	Roth, A. (1995). Bargaining Experiments, In The Handbook of Experimental Economics, ed. John Kagel and Alvin Roth. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
[34]	Henrich, J., McElreath, R., Barr, A., Ensminger, J., Barrett, C., Bolyanatz, A., Cardenas, J. C., Gurven, M., Gwako E., Henrich, N., Lesorogol, C., Marlowe, F., Tracer, D., and Ziker, J. (2006). Costly punishment across human societies. Science, 312, pp. 1767-1770.
[35]	Solnick, S. J. and Schweitzer, M. (1999). The influence of physical attractiveness and gender on ultimatum game decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79, pp. 199–215.
[36]	Harlé, K. M. and Sanfey, A. G. (2007). Incidental sadness biases social economic decisions in the Ultimatum Game. Emotion, 7, pp. 876–881.
[37]	Smith, L. L. (2002) Economies and markets as complex systems: Looking at them this way may provide fresh insight, Business Economics, 37 (1).
[38]	Medin, D. (2005) Social Networks, 12th International Summer School in Cognitive Science, Sofia, Bulgaria, New Bulgarian University.
[39]	Goldstone, R. L. (2005) Human Collective Behavior as a Complex Adaptive System, 12th International Summer School in Cognitive Science, Sofia, Bulgaria, New Bulgarian University.
[40]	Edwards, W. (1954) The theory of decision making, Psychological Bulletin, 51 (4), pp. 380-417.
[41]	Duéñez-Guzmán, E. A. and Sadedin, S. (2012) Evolving righteousness in a corrupt world. PLoS ONE 7.
[42]	Camerer, C. F., Loewenstein, G. and Rabin, M. (2011) Advances in behavioral economics, Princeton University Press.
[43]	Abdallah, S., Sayed, R., Rahwan, I., LeVeck, B. L., Cebrian, M., Rutherford, A. and Fowler, J. H. (2014) Corruption drives the emergence of civil society. Jou. R. Soc. Interface 11 (93), pp. 1-14.
[44]	World Bank. (2004). World Development Report 2004: Making Services Work For Poor People. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Tuna Uslu. (2016). Economic Choices Among Different Groups According to the Cognitive Economics and Social Judgement Theory. American Journal of Applied Psychology, 5(6), 104-110. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajap.20160506.20

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Tuna Uslu. Economic Choices Among Different Groups According to the Cognitive Economics and Social Judgement Theory. Am. J. Appl. Psychol. 2016, 5(6), 104-110. doi: 10.11648/j.ajap.20160506.20

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Tuna Uslu. Economic Choices Among Different Groups According to the Cognitive Economics and Social Judgement Theory. Am J Appl Psychol. 2016;5(6):104-110. doi: 10.11648/j.ajap.20160506.20

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ajap.20160506.20,
  author = {Tuna Uslu},
  title = {Economic Choices Among Different Groups According to the Cognitive Economics and Social Judgement Theory},
  journal = {American Journal of Applied Psychology},
  volume = {5},
  number = {6},
  pages = {104-110},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ajap.20160506.20},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajap.20160506.20},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajap.20160506.20},
  abstract = {Decision making, social judgement and human reasoning process is an important research area for experimental micro-economics. Social judgement happens with previous learning, reasoning and decision making processes and by the synchronized appearance of these cognitive functions, so the brain relates decision utility to anticipated and experienced utility. In the brain system, this neural synchronization is realized by the executive functions which seem to be located in the limbic system and frontal lobes. These neuroscientific researchs are also effective on social sciences and ethical discussions. This study generally provides examples from the relevant literature about the instruments used by the neurological applications to investigate the behaviours of individuals, how they are used to study interactions between individuals and how they can be used in modelling social dynamics as well as evaluating the effects of these studies on individuals and society. In this study, some behavioral perspectives on trust and reciprocity, fairness and altruism, justice and social norms were searched with the help of behavioral experiments presented in the game theory literature. The research part of the study includes the design, statistical results and findings of the experiment that we applied to the undergraduate students and public staff in Istanbul. The data was evaluated by ANOVA difference tests were conducted. The results of the analyses show that individuals don’t only try to behave rationally when they make economic judgements but also take decisions by involving their educations and social roles into the judgement processes. There are also significant differences between university students and public employees. The last part discusses the practical results of these studies and their possible effects on social sciences. One of the basic criticisms on the experimental studies of economic decision making is that the experiments in a laboratory environment may systematically vary from the behaviours in real life.},
 year = {2016}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Economic Choices Among Different Groups According to the Cognitive Economics and Social Judgement Theory
AU  - Tuna Uslu
Y1  - 2016/12/31
PY  - 2016
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajap.20160506.20
DO  - 10.11648/j.ajap.20160506.20
T2  - American Journal of Applied Psychology
JF  - American Journal of Applied Psychology
JO  - American Journal of Applied Psychology
SP  - 104
EP  - 110
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2328-5672
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajap.20160506.20
AB  - Decision making, social judgement and human reasoning process is an important research area for experimental micro-economics. Social judgement happens with previous learning, reasoning and decision making processes and by the synchronized appearance of these cognitive functions, so the brain relates decision utility to anticipated and experienced utility. In the brain system, this neural synchronization is realized by the executive functions which seem to be located in the limbic system and frontal lobes. These neuroscientific researchs are also effective on social sciences and ethical discussions. This study generally provides examples from the relevant literature about the instruments used by the neurological applications to investigate the behaviours of individuals, how they are used to study interactions between individuals and how they can be used in modelling social dynamics as well as evaluating the effects of these studies on individuals and society. In this study, some behavioral perspectives on trust and reciprocity, fairness and altruism, justice and social norms were searched with the help of behavioral experiments presented in the game theory literature. The research part of the study includes the design, statistical results and findings of the experiment that we applied to the undergraduate students and public staff in Istanbul. The data was evaluated by ANOVA difference tests were conducted. The results of the analyses show that individuals don’t only try to behave rationally when they make economic judgements but also take decisions by involving their educations and social roles into the judgement processes. There are also significant differences between university students and public employees. The last part discusses the practical results of these studies and their possible effects on social sciences. One of the basic criticisms on the experimental studies of economic decision making is that the experiments in a laboratory environment may systematically vary from the behaviours in real life.
VL  - 5
IS  - 6
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Tuna Uslu

Department of Sports Management, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Istanbul Gedik University, Istanbul, Turkey; Graduate Program of Business Management, Institute of Social Sciences, Istanbul Gedik University, Istanbul, Turkey

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Tuna Uslu. (2016). Economic Choices Among Different Groups According to the Cognitive Economics and Social Judgement Theory. American Journal of Applied Psychology, 5(6), 104-110. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajap.20160506.20

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Tuna Uslu. Economic Choices Among Different Groups According to the Cognitive Economics and Social Judgement Theory. Am. J. Appl. Psychol. 2016, 5(6), 104-110. doi: 10.11648/j.ajap.20160506.20

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Tuna Uslu. Economic Choices Among Different Groups According to the Cognitive Economics and Social Judgement Theory. Am J Appl Psychol. 2016;5(6):104-110. doi: 10.11648/j.ajap.20160506.20

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ajap.20160506.20,
  author = {Tuna Uslu},
  title = {Economic Choices Among Different Groups According to the Cognitive Economics and Social Judgement Theory},
  journal = {American Journal of Applied Psychology},
  volume = {5},
  number = {6},
  pages = {104-110},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ajap.20160506.20},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajap.20160506.20},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajap.20160506.20},
  abstract = {Decision making, social judgement and human reasoning process is an important research area for experimental micro-economics. Social judgement happens with previous learning, reasoning and decision making processes and by the synchronized appearance of these cognitive functions, so the brain relates decision utility to anticipated and experienced utility. In the brain system, this neural synchronization is realized by the executive functions which seem to be located in the limbic system and frontal lobes. These neuroscientific researchs are also effective on social sciences and ethical discussions. This study generally provides examples from the relevant literature about the instruments used by the neurological applications to investigate the behaviours of individuals, how they are used to study interactions between individuals and how they can be used in modelling social dynamics as well as evaluating the effects of these studies on individuals and society. In this study, some behavioral perspectives on trust and reciprocity, fairness and altruism, justice and social norms were searched with the help of behavioral experiments presented in the game theory literature. The research part of the study includes the design, statistical results and findings of the experiment that we applied to the undergraduate students and public staff in Istanbul. The data was evaluated by ANOVA difference tests were conducted. The results of the analyses show that individuals don’t only try to behave rationally when they make economic judgements but also take decisions by involving their educations and social roles into the judgement processes. There are also significant differences between university students and public employees. The last part discusses the practical results of these studies and their possible effects on social sciences. One of the basic criticisms on the experimental studies of economic decision making is that the experiments in a laboratory environment may systematically vary from the behaviours in real life.},
 year = {2016}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Economic Choices Among Different Groups According to the Cognitive Economics and Social Judgement Theory
AU  - Tuna Uslu
Y1  - 2016/12/31
PY  - 2016
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajap.20160506.20
DO  - 10.11648/j.ajap.20160506.20
T2  - American Journal of Applied Psychology
JF  - American Journal of Applied Psychology
JO  - American Journal of Applied Psychology
SP  - 104
EP  - 110
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2328-5672
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajap.20160506.20
AB  - Decision making, social judgement and human reasoning process is an important research area for experimental micro-economics. Social judgement happens with previous learning, reasoning and decision making processes and by the synchronized appearance of these cognitive functions, so the brain relates decision utility to anticipated and experienced utility. In the brain system, this neural synchronization is realized by the executive functions which seem to be located in the limbic system and frontal lobes. These neuroscientific researchs are also effective on social sciences and ethical discussions. This study generally provides examples from the relevant literature about the instruments used by the neurological applications to investigate the behaviours of individuals, how they are used to study interactions between individuals and how they can be used in modelling social dynamics as well as evaluating the effects of these studies on individuals and society. In this study, some behavioral perspectives on trust and reciprocity, fairness and altruism, justice and social norms were searched with the help of behavioral experiments presented in the game theory literature. The research part of the study includes the design, statistical results and findings of the experiment that we applied to the undergraduate students and public staff in Istanbul. The data was evaluated by ANOVA difference tests were conducted. The results of the analyses show that individuals don’t only try to behave rationally when they make economic judgements but also take decisions by involving their educations and social roles into the judgement processes. There are also significant differences between university students and public employees. The last part discusses the practical results of these studies and their possible effects on social sciences. One of the basic criticisms on the experimental studies of economic decision making is that the experiments in a laboratory environment may systematically vary from the behaviours in real life.
VL  - 5
IS  - 6
ER  -

Copy | Download