Feasibility and Realism in Cognitive Economics

  • Riccardo Viale


Economics is not in good shape. Over the past 20 years even The Economist has debated the case for abandoning the traditional neoclassical economic tools, since they seem unable to explain, let alone predict, most economic phenomena. In an article published on 23 April 1994, The Economist affirmed that, according to financial economists, only the study of decision-making psychology could shed any light on what is apparently irrational and inexplicable financial market behaviour. The neoclassical economists believed that markets are efficient, in other words prices reflect fundamental information and they change only if that information changes, rather than in response to the whims of fickle investors. Quoting George Soros (Wall Street guru as well as Popper’s student) and the Stanford economist Bill Sharpe, who won the Nobel Prize for his part in developing efficient-market theory, The Economist maintained that prospect theory and framing effects offer better explanations than neoclassical economics for both short- and long-term oddities in financial markets.


Prospect Theory Framing Effect Neoclassical Economic Preference System Folk Psychology 
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. Arrow, K. J. (1971). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In F. Lamberton (Ed.), Economics of information and knowledge. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  2. Binmore, K., Shaked, A., & Sutton, J. (1985). Testing non-cooperative bargaining theory: A preliminary study. American Economic Review, 75, 1178–80.Google Scholar
  3. Blaug, M. (1980). The methodology of economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cartwright, N. (1983). How the laws of physics Lie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Duhem, P. (1969). To save the phenomena. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Egidi, M. (1992). Il dilemma ‘as if’. Sistemi Intelligenti, IV(3), 461–487.Google Scholar
  7. Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P., and the ABC Research Group. (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Goldman, A. (1993). Philosophical application of cognitive science. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  9. Goodman, N. (1965). Fact fiction and forecast. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merril.Google Scholar
  10. Hausman, D. M., & McPherson, M. S. (1993). Economics, rationality, and ethics. In D. M. Hausman (Ed.), The philosophy of economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1994).Google Scholar
  11. Hey, J. D. (1991). Experiments in economics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. Holland, J. M., Holyoak, K. J., Nisbett, R. E., & Thagard, P. R. (1986). Induction. Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Johnson Laird, P. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979b). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (1982). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Langley, P., Simon, H. A., Bradshaw, G. L., & Zytkow, J. M. (1987). Scientific discovery. Cambridge Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Mackie, J. L. (1974). The cement of the universe. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  18. McCloskey, D. N. (1986). The rhetoric of economics. In D. M. Hausman (Ed.), The philosophy of economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1994).Google Scholar
  19. Montesano, A. (1998). Rationality in economics: A general framework. In G. Preyer, G. Peter, & A. Ulfig (Eds.), After the received view. Developments in the theory of science (Protosociology, Vol. 12, pp. 290–296). Frankfurt: Frankfurt am Main Univ.Google Scholar
  20. Quine, W. O. (1969). Epistemology naturalized. In W. V. Quine (Ed.), Ontological relativity and other essays. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Rosenberg, A. (1983). If economics isn’t science, what is it? In D. M. Hausman (Ed.), The philosophy of economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1994).Google Scholar
  22. Rosenberg, A. (1988). Philosophy of social science. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  23. Salmon, W. (1984). Scientific explanation and the causal structure of the world. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Samuelson, P.A. (1966). The collected scientific papers of Paul A. Samuelson, in J.E. Stiglitz (ed.). Cambridge Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Stich, S. (1990). The fragmentation of reason. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Viale, R. (1994a). Dans la Boîte noire: les mécanismes cognitifs de la décision scientifique. In R. Boudon & M. Clavelin (Eds.), Le rélativisme est-il résistible? Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  27. von Wright, G. H. (1971). Explanation and understanding. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rosselli FoundationTorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations