• Luciano L’Abate


I am not an economist in any way, shape, or form. This is why I could not muster enough influence or traction to recruit or seduce a real, qualified, honest-to-goodness economist to collaborate with one chapter in this volume. However, I felt that this volume would not be complete without a chapter in this discipline. Consequently, I had to make do, in complete humility and admitted ignorance, with the help of Karen Viars, with whatever I could find by cross-indexing paradigms with economics. Then I tried to make sense of whatever information I gathered through summaries that I reproduced here with complete bibliographic acknowledgments. Whether all these summaries should be within quotes because they are essentially downloaded with few cosmetic changes is a decision that I made after discussing with two colleagues who are versed in the ethics of citing published research. The reader should understand that perhaps the whole chapter should be within quotes.


Intellectual Capital Delay Discount Relationship Marketing Rational Choice Theory Triple Bottom Line 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Arnould, E. J. (1989). Toward a broadened theory of preference formation and the diffusion of innovations: Cases from Zinder Province, Niger Republic. The Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 239–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bolacchi, G. (2008). A new paradigm for the integration of the social sciences. In N. K. Innis & N. K. Innis (Eds.), Reflections on adaptive behavior: Essays in honor of J. E. R. Staddon (pp. 315–353). Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  3. Belk, R. W., & Coon, G. S. (1993). Gift giving as agapic love: An alternative to the exchange paradigm based on dating experiences. The Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 393–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bickel, W. K., Hughes, J. R., DeGrandpre, R. J., & Higgins, S. T. (1992). Behavioral economics of drug self-administration: IV. The effects of response requirement on the consumption of and interaction between concurrently available coffee and cigarettes. Psychopharmacology, 107, 211–216.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bierhoff, H., & Fetchenhauer, D. (2006). How to explain prosocial and solidarity behavior: A comparison of framing theory with related meta-theoretical paradigms. In D. Fetchenhauer, A. Flache, A. P. Buunk, S. Lindenberg, D. Fetchenhauer, A. Flache, & S. Lindenberg (Eds.), Solidarity and prosocial behavior: An integration of sociological and psychological (pp. 225–242). New York, NY: Springer Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Birch, C., & Paul, D. (2003). Life and work: Challenging economic man. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.Google Scholar
  7. Block, L., & Kramer, T. (2009). The effect of superstitious beliefs on performance expectations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37, 161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bose, S., & Thomas, K. (2007). Valuation of intellectual capital in knowledge-based firms: The need for new methods in a changing economic paradigm. Management Decision, 45, 1484–1496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell, C. (1991). Consumption: The new wave of research in the humanities and social sciences. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 57–74.Google Scholar
  10. Chen, C. C., Peng, M. W., & Saparito, P. A. (2002). Individualism, collectivism, and opportunism: A cultural perspective on transaction cost economics. Journal of Management, 28, 567–583.Google Scholar
  11. Conceição, P., & Heitor, M. V. (2003). Systems of innovation and competence building across diversity: Learning from the Portuguese path in the European context. In L. V. Shavinina & L. V. Shavinina (Eds.), The international handbook on innovation (pp. 945–975). New York: Elsevier Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. David, P., & Vicarelli, G. (1989). Social and economic aspects of the family in an Italian peripheral area. Marriage & Family Review, 14, 145–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. de Souza, R. (2009). Creating “communicative spaces”: A case of NGO community organizing for HIV/AIDS prevention. Health Communication, 24, 692–702.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Derné, S. (1994). Structural realities, persistent dilemmas, and the construction of emotional paradigms: Love in three cultures. In W. M. Wentworth, J. Ryan, W. M. Wentworth, & J. Ryan (Eds.), Social perspectives on emotion (Vol. 2, pp. 281–308). New York: Elsevier Science/JAI.Google Scholar
  15. Epstein, L. H., Salvy, S. J., Carr, K. A., Dearing, K. K., & Bickel, W. K. (2010). Food reinforcement, delay discounting and obesity. Physiology and Behavior, 100, 438–445.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Etzioni, A. (1986). Socio-economics: A proposal for a new interdisciplinary field. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 1, 475–482.Google Scholar
  17. Fetchenhauer, D., & Dunning, D. (2009). Do people trust too much or too little? Journal of Economic Psychology, 30, 263–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fetchenhauer, D., Flashe, A., Buunk, A. P., & Lindenberg, S. (Eds.). (2006). Solidarity and prosocial behavior: An integration of sociological and psychological perspectives. New York: Springer-Science.Google Scholar
  19. Foster, J. (1997). Individuals, communities and organizations: A communitarian paradigm for cross-cultural enterprise. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A, 57, 4532.Google Scholar
  20. Frey, B., & Stutzer, A. (Eds.). (2007). Economics and psychology: A promising new cross-disciplinary field. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Gagné, M. (2008). Review of ‘Economics and psychology: A promising new cross-disciplinary field’. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49, 343–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gassenheimer, J. B., Houston, F. S., & Davis, J. (1998). The role of economic value, social value, and perceptions of fairness in interorganizational relationship retention decisions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26, 322–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Glimcher, P. W. (2003). Decisions, uncertainty, and the brain: The science of neuroeconomics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Godard, J. (2002). Institutional environments, employer practices, and states in liberal market economies. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 41, 249–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Green, L., & Myerson, J. (2010). Experimental and correlational analyses of delay and probability discounting. In G. J. Madden & W. K. Bickel (Eds.), Impulsivity: The behavioral and neurological science of discounting (pp. 67–92). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grönroos, C. (1994). From marketing mix to relationship marketing: Towards a paradigm shift in marketing. Management Decision, 32, 4–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Guinote, A., & Vescio, T. K. (Eds.). (2010). The social psychology of power. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  28. Hare, T. A., O’Doherty, J., Camerer, C. F., Schultz, W., & Range, A. (2008). Dissociating the role of the orbitofrontal cortex and the striatum in the computation of goal values and prediction errors. The Journal of Neuroscience, 28(22), 5623–5630.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hesterly, W. S., Liebeskind, J., & Zenger, T. R. (1990). Organizational economics: An impending revolution in organization theory? The Academy of Management Review, 15, 402–420.Google Scholar
  30. Hollenbeck, C. R., Peters, C., & Zinkhan, G. M. (2006). Gift giving: A community paradigm. Psychology and Marketing, 23, 573–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hubbard, S. (2004). Disability studies and health care curriculum: The great divide. Journal of Allied Health, 33, 184–188.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Kayaalp, O. (1989). Reconciling economic postulates: Does ‘adaptive’ egoism satisfice? Journal of Behavioral Economics, 18, 289–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kilbourne, W. E. (2006). The role of the dominant social paradigm in the quality of life/environmental interface. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 1, 39–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kilbourne, W. E., Beckmann, S. C., Lewis, A., & Van Dam, Y. (2001). A multinational examination of the role of the dominant social paradigm in environmental attitudes of university students. Environment and Behavior, 33, 209–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. L’Abate, L. (2011a). Hurt feelings: Theory and research in intimate relationships. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. L’Abate, L. (2011b). The seven sources of pleasure: Making way for the upside in the midst of modern demands. Newport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  37. L’Abate, L., Cusinato, M., Maino, E., Colesso, W., & Scilletta, C. (2010). Relational competence theory: Research and mental health applications. New York: Springer-Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lamal, P. A. (1992). Behavior analysis and socio-economics: Some similarities and differences. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 21, 173–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lindbladh, E., & Lyttkens, C. (2002). Habit versus choice: The process of decision-making in health-related behaviour. Social Science & Medicine, 55, 451–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lindenberg, S. (2006). Prosocial behavior, solidarity, and framing processes. In D. Fetchenhauer, A. Flache, A. P. Buunk, S. Lindenberg, D. Fetchenhauer, A. Flache, & S. Lindenberg (Eds.), Solidarity and prosocial behavior: An integration of sociological and psychological perspectives (pp. 23–44). New York, NY: Springer Science.Google Scholar
  41. Lutz, C. (1988). Unnatural emotions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  42. Madden, G. J., & Bickel, W. K. (Eds.). (2010). Impulsivity: The behavioral and neurological science of discounting. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  43. McWilliams, A., & Smart, D. L. (1993). Efficiency v. structure-conduct-performance: Implications for strategy research and practice. Journal of Management, 19, 63–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Naylor, L. A. (2004). Review of ‘Life and work: Challenging economic man’. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17, 228–231.Google Scholar
  45. Nida-Rümelin, J. (1991). Practical reason or metapreferences? An undogmatic defense of Kantian morality. Theory and Decision, 30, 133–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ortmann, A., & Rydval, O. (2004). Review of ‘Decisions, uncertainty, and the brain. The science of neuroeconomics’. Journal of Economic Psychology, 25, 891–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pirages, D. C., & Ehrlich, P. R. (1974). Ark II: Social response to environmental imperatives. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  48. Rafferty, J. (2001). The synthesis of economic organization and the management of change: Intercultural transferability and the Japanese paradigm. Management Decision, 39, 415–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Savani, K., Markus, H., & Conner, A. L. (2008). Let your preference be your guide? Preferences and choices are more tightly linked for North Americans than for Indians. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 861–876.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sears, D. O. (1991). Socio-economics: Challenge to the neoclassical economic paradigm. Psychological Science, 2, 12–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shaddock, A. J. (2003). People with disabilities in the era of the ‘triple bottom line’. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 28, 90–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shapiro, S. P. (2005). Agency theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 31, 263–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Storberg-Walker, J. (2009). Heterodox economics, social capital, and HRD: Moving beyond the limits of the neoclassical paradigm. Human Resource Development Review, 8, 97–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Timmermann, D. (1995). Human capital theory and the individualization theorem. In G. Neubauer & K. Hurrelmann (Eds.), Individualization in childhood and adolescence (pp. 223–245). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  55. van den Ende, J., & Dolfsma, W. (2005). Technology-push, demand-pull and the shaping of technological paradigms – Patterns in the development of computing technology. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 15, 83–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wendlandt, M., & Schrader, U. (2007). Consumer reactance against loyalty programs. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 24, 293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zafirovski, M. (1998). Socio-economics and rational choice theory: Specification of their relations. The Journal of SocioEconomics, 27, 165–205.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyGeorgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations