Designing a Homo Psychologicus More Psychologicus: Empirical Results on Value Perception in Support to a New Theoretical Organizational-Economic Agent Based Model

  • Andrea CeschiEmail author
  • Enrico Rubaltelli
  • Riccardo Sartori
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 290)


The study presents a new approach of modelling human behavior based on empirical evidence on individual differences in cognitive science and behavioral economics fields. Compared to classical studies of economics, empirical research makes use of the descriptive approach to analyze human behavior and to create models able to explain the behavior of investors and organizational traders in a more realistic way. Consistently, an economic assumption that has been strongly disputed by scientists is the concept of Homo Economicus, which is currently considered unable to capture all the details and variability that characterize human behavior (which we define, in opposition to the economic label, Homo Psychologicus). Thanks to recent empirical studies and the development of such advanced techniques as agent based models, new simulation studies are now capable of investigating a higher number of psychological variables. However, models which implement heuristics or fallacies often distribute these characteristics among all agents without distinction. The present study shows how it is possible to design multiple agents considering individual differences, which can have a different impact on organizational and economic behavior. Starting from several empirical studies, which show a negative relation between optimism and loss aversion, coefficients of the Value function of the Prospect theory have been reviewed to create agents characterized by different psychological strategies used to manage costs and risks.


Agent Based Model Homo Economicus Loss aversion Optimism Prospect Theory Value function 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Arkes, H.R., Blumer, C.: The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 35(1), 124–140 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benartzi, S., Thaler, R.H.: Myopic Loss Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 110(1), 73–92 (1995)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bonabeau, E.: Agent-based modeling: Methods and techniques for simulating human systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 99(suppl. 3), 7280 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bruine de Bruin, W., Parker, A.M., Fischhoff, B.: Individual differences in adult decision-making competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92(5), 938 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ceschi, A., Hysenbelli, D., Sartori, R., Tacconi, G.: Cooperate or Defect? How an agent based model simulation on helping behavior can be an educational tool. Paper presented at the Paper Session Presented at the Meeting of the 3rd ebuTEL, International Workshop on Evidence Based and User Centred Technology Enhanced Learning, Trento, Italy (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ceschi, A., Hysenbelli, D., Slovic, P.: When awareness of those we cannot help demotivates us from helping those we can help: An agent-based simulation study of pseudoinefficacy. In: Dickert, S. (ed.) Paper presented at the Prosocial Responses to Donation Requests: Motivators and Demotivators. Symposium Conducted at the Meeting of the 55th TeaP Conference of Experimental Psychologists, Vienna, Austria (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ceschi, A., Sartori, R., Weller, J.: The factors of reasoning: Structures of belonging of heuristics and biases. Paper presented at the Poster Presented at the Meeting of the 24th SPUDM, Subjective Probability, Utility, and Decision Making. European Association of Decision Making, Barcelona (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chapman, D.A., Polkovnichenko, V.: First-Order Risk Aversion, Heterogeneity, and Asset Market Outcomes. The Journal of Finance 64(4), 1863–1887 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Palma, A., Ben-Akiva, M., Brownstone, D., Holt, C., Magnac, T., McFadden, D., ... Wakker, P.: Risk, uncertainty and discrete choice models. Marketing Letters 19(3-4), 269–285 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Frisch, D.: Reasons for framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 54, 399–429 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Iyer, A., Lindner, A., Kagan, I., Andersen, R.A.: Motor preparatory activity in posterior parietal cortex is modulated by subjective absolute value. PLoS Biology 8(8), e1000444 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Janssen, M.A., Ostrom, E.: Empirically based, agent-based models. Ecology and Society 11(2), 37 (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kahneman, D., Tversky, A.: Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47, 263–291 (1979)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    LeBaron, B.: Agent-based computational finance: Suggested readings and early research. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 24(5), 679–702 (2000)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    LeBaron, B.: Agent-based computational finance. In: Handbook of Computational Economics, vol. 2, pp. 1187–1233 (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rubaltelli, E., Dickert, S., Slovic, P.: Response mode, compatibility, and dual-processes in the evaluation of simple gambles: An eye-tracking investigation. Judgment and Decision Making 7(4), 427–440 (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sartori, R., Ceschi, A.: Biases, reasoning and personality in finance. International Journal of Psychology 47(suppl. 1), 109–151 (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shafir, E., Diamond, P., Tversky, A.: Money Illusion. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 112(2), 341–374 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Simon, H.A.: A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 59, 99–118 (1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Simon, H.A.: Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science 2(1), 125–134 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Soman, D., Cheema, A.: The effects of windfall gains on the sunk-cost effect. Marketing Letters 12, 51–62 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Strough, J.N., Karns, T.E., Schlosnagle, L.: Decision-making heuristics and biases across the life span. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1235(1), 57–74 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thaler, R.H.: From homo economicus to homo sapiens. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 14(1), 133–141 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Ceschi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Enrico Rubaltelli
    • 2
  • Riccardo Sartori
    • 1
  1. 1.University of VeronaVeronaItaly
  2. 2.University of PaduaPaduaItaly

Personalised recommendations