, Volume 192, Issue 11, pp 3557–3575 | Cite as

“To navigate safely in the vast sea of empirical facts”

Ontology and methodology in behavioral economics
  • Erik Angner


This paper examines issues of ontology and methodology in behavioral economics: the attempt to increase the explanatory and predictive power of economic theory by providing it with more psychologically plausible foundations. Of special interest is the epistemological status of neoclassical economic theory within behavioral economics, the runaway success story of contemporary economics. Behavioral economists aspire to replace the fundamental assumptions of orthodox, neoclassical economic theory. Yet, behavioral economists have gone out of their way to praise those very assumptions. Matthew Rabin, for example, writes that behavioral economics “is not only built on the premise that [orthodox] economic methods are great, but also that most mainstream economic assumptions are great.” These apparently contradictory attitudes toward neoclassical theory raises the question of what, exactly, its epistemological status within behavioral economics is. This paper argues that the paradox can be resolved, and the question answered, by thinking of the epistemological status of neoclassical theory within behavioral economics in terms of Max Weber’s ideal types: analytical constructs that are not intended to be descriptively true of anything but which nevertheless can be used for a variety of theoretical purposes. The analysis is consistent with many of the insights from the philosophical literature on models in science and has important implications for the practice of economics—behavioral and neoclassical—as well as for the very nature of rationality.


Ideal types Rational-choice theory Microeconomics Behavioral economics Max Weber 



I am grateful to Colin Bird, Jeroen Van Bouwel, Floris Heukelom, George Loewenstein, and two anonymous referees for constructive comments on earlier drafts. Errors remain my own.


  1. Alexandrova, A., & Haybron, D. M. (2012). High fidelity economics. In J. B. Davis & D. W. Hands (Eds.), The Elgar companion to recent economic methodology (pp. 94–117). Northampton: Edward Elgar. doi: 10.4337/9780857938077.00010.
  2. Angner, E. (2012). A course in behavioral economics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  3. Angner, E. (2013). Is empirical research relevant to philosophical conclusions? Res Philosophica, 90(3), 343–363. doi: 10.11612/resphil.2013.90.3.4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Angner, E., & Loewenstein, G. (2012). Behavioral economics. In U. Mäki (Ed.), Handbook of the philosophy of science: Philosophy of economics (pp. 641–690). Amsterdam: Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-51676-3.50022-1.
  5. Brooks, D. (2008, October 28). The behavioral revolution. The New York Times, p. A31.Google Scholar
  6. Camerer, C. F. (1999). Behavioral economics: Reunifying psychology and economics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 96(19), 10575–10577. doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.19.10575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Camerer, C. F., Issacharoff, S., Loewenstein, G., O’Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (2003). Regulation for conservatives: Behavioral economics and the case for “asymmetric paternalism.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 151(3), 1211–1254. doi: 10.2307/3312889.
  8. Camerer, C. F., & Loewenstein, G. (2004). Behavioral economics: Past, present, future. In C. F. Camerer, G. Loewenstein, & M. Rabin (Eds.), Advances in behavioral economics (pp. 3–51). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  9. Clarke, S. (2001). Idealization, abstraction, and ideal types. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (pp. 7142–7148). Oxford: Pergamon. doi: 10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/01013-5.
  10. Diamond, P. A., & Vartiainen, H. (Eds.). (2007). Behavioral economics and its applications. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Edgeworth, F. Y. (1881). Mathematical psychics: An essay on the application of mathematics to the moral sciences. London: C. Kegan Paul & Co.Google Scholar
  12. Frank, R. H. (2011). The Darwin economy: Liberty, competition, and the common good (Paperback ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Frank, R. H., & Bernanke, B. S. (2004). Principles of micro-economics (2nd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.Google Scholar
  14. Friedman, M. (1953). Essays in positive economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Frigg, R. (2009). Models and fiction. Synthese, 172(2), 251–268. doi: 10.1007/s11229-009-9505-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Giere, R. N. (2004). How models are used to represent reality. Philosophy of Science, 71(5), 742–752. doi: 10.1086/425063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gilad, B., & Kaish, S. (Eds.). (1986). Handbook of behavioral economics (Vols. 1–2). Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  18. Grether, D. M., & Plott, C. R. (1979). Economic theory of choice and the preference reversal phenomenon. The American Economic Review, 69(4), 623–638.Google Scholar
  19. Griffin, J. (1986). Well-being: Its meaning, measurement, and moral importance. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  20. Heukelom, F. (2014). Behavioral economics: A history. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kahneman, D. (2003a). A psychological perspective on economics. The American Economic Review, 93(2), 162–168. doi: 10.1257/000282803321946985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kahneman, D. (2003b). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. The American Economic Review, 93(5), 1449–1475. doi: 10.1257/000282803322655392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193–206. doi: 10.1257/jep.5.1.193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291. doi: 10.2307/1914185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Koopmans, T. C. (1957). Three essays on the state of economic science. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  26. Laibman, D. (2001). Editorial perspectives: Of people, curves, and autism. Science & Society, 65(3), 277–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lichtenstein, S., & Slovic, P. (1971). Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89(1), 46–55. doi: 10.1037/h0031207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Loewenstein, G. (1996). Out of control: Visceral influences on behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65(3), 272–292. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1996.0028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mäki, U. (1998). Realisticness. In J. B. Davis, D. W. Hands, & U. Mäki (Eds.), The handbook of economic methodology (pp. 409–413). Northampton: Edward Elgar. doi: 10.4337/9781781954249.00105.Google Scholar
  30. Morgan, M. S., & Knuuttila, T. (2012). Models and modelling in economics. In U. Mäki (Ed.), Handbook of the philosophy of science: Philosophy of economics (pp. 49–87). Amsterdam: Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-51676-3.50003-8.
  31. Quine, W. V. (1951). On Carnap’s views on ontology. Philosophical Studies, 2(5), 65–72. doi: 10.1007/BF02199422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rabin, M. (1998). Psychology and economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 36(1), 11–46.Google Scholar
  33. Rabin, M. (2002). A perspective on psychology and economics. European Economic Review, 46(4–5), 657–685. doi: 10.1016/S0014-2921(01)00207-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ringer, F. K. (1997). Max Weber’s methodology: The unification of the cultural and social sciences. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Ross, D. (2005). Economic theory and cognitive science: Microexplanation. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. Samuelson, P. A. (1937). A note on measurement of utility. The Review of Economic Studies, 4(2), 155–161. doi: 10.2307/2967612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Savage, L. J. (1972). The foundations of statistics (2nd rev. ed.). New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
  38. Schliesser, E. (2011). “Every system of scientific theory involves philosophical assumptions” (Talcott Parsons). The surprising Weberian roots to Milton Friedman’s methodology. In D. Dieks, W. J. Gonzalez, S. Hartmann, T. Uebel, & M. Weber (Eds.), Explanation, prediction, and confirmation (pp. 533–543). Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-1180-8_37.
  39. Sent, E.-M. (2004). Behavioral economics: How psychology made its (limited) way back into economics. History of Political Economy, 36(4), 735–760. doi: 10.1215/00182702-36-4-735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Simon, H. A. (1987). Behavioural economics. In J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, & P. Newman (Eds.), The new Palgrave: A dictionary of economics (Vol. 1, pp. 221–225). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  41. Slovic, P., Griffin, D., & Tversky, A. (1990). Compatibility effects in judgment and choice. In H. J. Einhorn & R. M. Hogarth (Eds.), Insights in decision making: A tribute to Hillel J. Einhorn (pp. 5–27). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  42. Smith, A. (1976). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. (E. Cannan, Ed.) (5th ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  43. Thagard, P. (2005). Mind: Introduction to cognitive science (2nd ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  44. Thaler, R. H. (1991). Quasi rational economics. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  45. Thaler, R. H. (2000). From homo economicus to homo sapiens. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(1), 133–141. doi: 10.1257/jep.14.1.133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. doi: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. The Journal of Business, 59(4), S251–S278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), 1039–1061. doi: 10.2307/2937956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Weber, M. (1949). “Objectivity” in social science and social policy. In E. Shils & H. A. Finch (Eds.), The methodology of the social sciences (pp. 50–112). Glencoe: Free Press.Google Scholar
  50. Weber, M. (1958). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. (T. Parsons, Trans.). New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
  51. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds.) (Vols. 1–2). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  52. Weber, R. A., & Dawes, R. M. (2005). Behavioral economics. In N. J. Smelser & R. Swedberg (Eds.), The handbook of economic sociology (2nd ed., pp. 90–108). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  53. Wimsatt, W. C. (1987). False models as means to truer theories. In M. H. Nitecki & A. Hoffman (Eds.), Neutral models in biology (pp. 23–55). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, Department of Economics, and School of Policy, Government, and International AffairsGeorge Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations