Crossing the Rubicon

  • Amitai Etzioni
Part of the Library of Public Policy and Public Administration book series (LPPP, volume 11)


Economists tend to assume that preferences are given and stable. This assumption is central to their research because it allows them to explain changes in behavior largely in terms of variables such as changes in income and relative prices, and more generally in terms of incentives and disincentives. However, sociologists and psychologists have shown that preferences are formed during the socialization process and continue to be reformulated during adulthood through methods like persuasion, leadership, and advertising. Hence when one compares behavior at two points in time, one must take into account changes in preferences that may well have occurred during the given period. The challenge manifested in both perspectives is that there is no consolidated theory of what factors drive preferences. “Crossing the Rubicon;” that is, breaking the wall that separates economic and non-economic disciplines in order to understand preference formation could engender a new and more complete framework for policymakers.


  1. Basu, K. 1983. Fuzzy revealed preference theory. Journal of Economic Theory 32: 212–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker, G.S. 1968. Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy 76: 169–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ———. 1973. A theory of marriage: Part I. Journal of Political Economy 81: 813–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ———. 1993. A treatise on the family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bicchieri, C. 2010. Norms, preferences, and conditional behavior. Politics, Philosophy, and Economics 9: 297–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Binmore, K. 2010. Social norms or social preferences? Mind & Society 9: 139–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blasi, A.J. 2009. A market theory of religion. Social Compass 56: 263–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charness, G., and M. Rabin. 2002. Understanding social preferences with simple tests. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 117: 817–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen, J., Y.J. Choi, K. Mori, Y. Sawada, and S. Sugano. 2010. Socio-Economic studies on suicide: A survey. Journal of Economic Surveys 26: 273–284.Google Scholar
  10. Cigno, A. 2011. The economics of marriage. Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik 12: 28–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dietrich, F., and C. List. 2013. Where do preferences come from? International Journal of Game Theory 42: 613–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Drakopoulous, S.A. 2012. The history of attitudes towards interdependent preferences. Journal of the History of Economic Thought 34: 541–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ermisch, J. 1988. Economic influences on birth rates. National Institute Economic Review 126: 71–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Etzioni, A. 1985. Opening the preferences: A socio-economic research agenda. The Journal of Behavioral Economics 14: 183–198.Google Scholar
  15. ———. 1988. The moral dimension: Toward a new economics. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  16. Frank, R.H. 2011. Supply, demand and marriage. New York Times.Google Scholar
  17. Hamermesh, D.S., and N.M. Soss. 1974. An economic theory of suicide. Journal of Political Economy 82: 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hausman, D.M. 2011. Mistakes about preferences in the social sciences. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 41 (1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huber, G.A., and K. Arceneaux. 2007. Identifying the persuasive effects of presidential advertising. American Journal of Political Science 51: 957–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kahneman, D. 2011. Bias, blindness, and how we truly think (Part 2). Scholar
  21. ———. 2012. The human side of decision making: Thinking things through with Daniel Kahneman, PhD. The Journal of Investment Consulting 13: 5–14.Google Scholar
  22. Kapteyn, A., T. Wansbeek, and J. Buyze. 1980. The dynamics of preference formation. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 1: 123–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Keita, L. 2012. Revealed preference theory, rationality, and neoclassical economics: Science or ideology. Africa Development 37: 73–116.Google Scholar
  24. Kõszegi, B., and M. Rabin. 2006. A model of reference-dependent preferences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 121: 1133–1165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lee, L.W. 1997. Persuasive advertising and socialization. International Journal of the Business of Economics 4: 203–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Maccoby, E.E. 1992. The role of parents in the socialization of children: An historical overview. Developmental Psychology 28: 1006–1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mäki, U. 2009. Economics imperialism: Concept and constraints. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 39: 351–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Martins, N. 2011. Can neuroscience inform economics? Rationality, emotions, and preference formation. Cambridge Journal of Economics 35: 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Matsueda, R.L., D.A. Kreager, and D. Huizinga. 2006. Deterring delinquents: A rational choice model of theft and violence. American Sociological Review 71: 95–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Norton, B.G. 1994. Economists’ preferences and the preferences of economists. Environmental Values 3: 311–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pearlin, L.I., and M. Rosenberg. 1952. Propaganda techniques in institutional advertising. The Public Opinion Quarterly 16: 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Phillips, K. 2011. The manufactured wants and unmet needs of young America. Forbes.Google Scholar
  33. Rozen, K. 2010. Foundations of intrinsic habit formation. Econometrica 78: 1341–1373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rizvi, S.A.T. 2001. Preference formation and the axioms of choice. Review of Political Economy 13: 141–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Santilli, P.C. 1983. The informative and persuasive functions of advertising: A moral appraisal. Journal of Business Ethics 2: 27–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Simion, C. 2005. Orienting and preference: an enquiry into the mechanisms underlying human decision making. Dissertation, California Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  37. Simon, H.A. 1959. Theories of decision-making in economics and behavioral science. The American Economic Review 49: 23–53.Google Scholar
  38. Stigler, G.J., and G.S. Becker. 1977. De gustibus non est disputandum. The American Economic Review 67: 76–90.Google Scholar
  39. Wildavsky, A. 1987. Choosing preferences by constructing institutions: A cultural theory of preference formation. American Political Science Review 81: 4–21.Google Scholar
  40. Witt, U. 1991. Economics, sociobiology, and behavioral psychology on preferences. Journal of Economic Psychology 12: 155–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amitai Etzioni
    • 1
  1. 1.The George Washington UniversityWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations