Abstract
Within the neuroeconomics field, there are two evident situations in which decisionmaking process do not respect the rule of expected utility: gambling and moral behaviors. In the case of gambling behavior, a tendency to engage in risky decision-making could lead to choose disadvantageous options (loss vs gain) and long-term negative economic consequences. Regarding moral behavior, subjects prefer options not always related to their expected utility, but more to their social and ethical significance (fair vs unfair). This commentary discusses both the theoretical and empirical basis of these behaviors, focusing on neurophysiological methods adopted to investigate commonalities and differences in physiological and behavioral subjects’ responses. The dichotomy between emotions and rationality will be explored considering two popular economics games, Iowa Gambling Task and Ultimatum Game, and will be discussed in the light of somatic marker hypothesis frame. We propose a multidimensional approach to describe more in-depth real-world decision-making situations in neuroeconomics.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call