|
|
Research
Decision-making,
Risk and Uncertainty
The question of how humans make decisions continues to pose
important challenges. Historically, disciplines such as Psychology,
Philosophy, Economics and Biology have approached the problem using different
assumptions and different nomenclature. However, the field of Neuroeconomics
has begun to develop as an inter-disciplinary effort to unify a theoretical
framework for understanding human behavior. Neuroeconomics could be defined
as the study of how the embodied brain interacts with its external
environment to produce behavior.
In recent years, fMRI (functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) and modeling
has developed to a point where neural activity in specific regions of the
brain can be observed while executing a process. In vivo brain activity is
currently being studied as individuals perform a variety of functions, such
as solving problems, making choices between alternatives, forming
expectations about the future, carrying out plans and routine tasks,
interacting, cooperating and negotiating with others.
Patterns of behavior and response have been identified through cognitive
science and confirmed through psycho-physiological methods. It has been well
documented how subjects make decisions and by what mechanisms they do so in a
wide range of conditions. What neuroscience can add to the efforts of
Psychologists, however: Is reinforcement of hypotheses formed in Psychology. Perhaps
of even more value to the effort, is neuroscience’s ability to allow for the
separation of one condition from another as part of the protocol for testing
hypotheses developed in Psychology.
Economists have used Rational Choice Theory, included in which are Game
Theory and Decision Theory, to explain the logic behind optimal human action.
The assumption of rationality is both one of the most important and most
controversial assumptions of modern economics. Current experimental
economics, as well as neuroscience research, informs us about the
relationship between rationality and the mechanisms of human decision-making.
Neuroeconomics can therefore illuminate ecological notions of rationality as
potentially better descriptors of neural mechanisms of the brain in
coordination with behavior.
Philosophers have delved into the subjects of belief, desires and intentions
in relation to human life for nearly the whole of recorded history. However,
for centuries, the study of human behavior has been distinct from the study
of the natural world. The tendency has been for researchers to separate
reason from emotion and for the mind to be considered separately from the
body. In recent years, the orollaries of these approaches have been
recognized as having unnecessarily limited the field of inquiry.
Neuroeconomics can shed light on questions of free will and determinism,
among many others, by examining the neural mechanisms of decision making.
Neuroeconomics can help to illuminate discussion of these questions, each of
which is a potential monograph:
- How are the mechanisms that
direct automatic forms of behavior similar to or different from the
mechanisms that direct deliberative processes?
- Can externally irrational
choices be internally rational? What structures of the brain inform the
discussion?
- Is there a way to describe
preferences from a behavioral and a mechanistic perspective?
- Do structures of the brain
have the same level of activity in moral versus non-moral
decision-making scenarios?
- Why are we so good at
changing our minds? Is belief revision theory a mechanism of
homeostasis? What structures of the brain could provide a biological
basis for belief and are different structures implicated in belief
revision? What are the cognitive mechanisms that underlie the human
capacity to form and revise beliefs?
- Is there a neural distinction
between risk and ambiguity when subjects make decisions under conditions
of uncertainty? How does emotion impact our choice among alternatives
when outcome is uncertain?
- Are different areas of the
brain active in present versus future oriented decision making? If so,
how do structures of the brain that are active in present scenarios
requiring immediate decisions and actions interact with structures of
the brain that are active when addressing decisions and actions in
future scenarios?
- What parts of the brain are
active during prediction activities and are they different from those
parts that are active when experiencing utility? If a forecast does not
match a result, is part of the brain unhappy? Does this hold true in
scenarios of both positive and negative predicted utility?
Conceptual
Outline of What is to be Accomplished
1.
To survey the insights
that various disciplines have to offer in understanding human
decision-making.
2.
To discuss, analyze
and criticize the different approaches from the various disciplines.
3.
To identify an
interdisciplinary problem statement.
4.
To identify further
opportunity for academic pursuits and research in the area of
5.
Neuroeconomics.
The Value
and Usefulness of the Concept
Knowledge of how the brain interacts with its environment to
produce behavior will allow social scientists to better understand the
variety both within and between individuals’ decision making. In addition, understanding
how the brain process information can facilitate the development of a unified
theoretical framework for understanding human behavior.
|
