行为经济学中的偏见

IF 0.6 Q4 ECONOMICS Review of Behavioral Economics Pub Date : 2018-12-31 DOI:10.1561/105.00000092
G. Gigerenzer
{"title":"行为经济学中的偏见","authors":"G. Gigerenzer","doi":"10.1561/105.00000092","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Behavioral economics began with the intention of eliminating the psychological blind spot in rational choice theory and ended up portraying psychology as the study of irrationality. In its portrayal, people have systematic cognitive biases that are not only as persistent as visual illusions but also costly in real life—meaning that governmental paternalism is called upon to steer people with the help of “nudges.†These biases have since attained the status of truisms. In contrast, I show that such a view of human nature is tainted by a “bias bias,†the tendency to spot biases even when there are none. This may occur by failing to notice when small sample statistics differ from large sample statistics, mistaking people’s random error for systematic error, or confusing intelligent inferences with logical errors. Unknown to most economists, much of psychological research reveals a different portrayal, where people appear to have largely fine-tuned intuitions about chance, frequency, and framing. A systematic review of the literature shows little evidence that the alleged biases are potentially costly in terms of less health, wealth, or happiness. Getting rid of the bias bias is a precondition for psychology to play a positive role in economics.","PeriodicalId":43339,"journal":{"name":"Review of Behavioral Economics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1561/105.00000092","citationCount":"80","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Bias Bias in Behavioral Economics\",\"authors\":\"G. Gigerenzer\",\"doi\":\"10.1561/105.00000092\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Behavioral economics began with the intention of eliminating the psychological blind spot in rational choice theory and ended up portraying psychology as the study of irrationality. In its portrayal, people have systematic cognitive biases that are not only as persistent as visual illusions but also costly in real life—meaning that governmental paternalism is called upon to steer people with the help of “nudges.†These biases have since attained the status of truisms. In contrast, I show that such a view of human nature is tainted by a “bias bias,†the tendency to spot biases even when there are none. This may occur by failing to notice when small sample statistics differ from large sample statistics, mistaking people’s random error for systematic error, or confusing intelligent inferences with logical errors. Unknown to most economists, much of psychological research reveals a different portrayal, where people appear to have largely fine-tuned intuitions about chance, frequency, and framing. A systematic review of the literature shows little evidence that the alleged biases are potentially costly in terms of less health, wealth, or happiness. Getting rid of the bias bias is a precondition for psychology to play a positive role in economics.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43339,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of Behavioral Economics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1561/105.00000092\",\"citationCount\":\"80\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of Behavioral Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1561/105.00000092\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Behavioral Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1561/105.00000092","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 80

摘要

行为经济学最初的目的是消除理性选择理论中的心理学盲点,最终将心理学描绘为对非理性的研究。在它的描述中,人们有系统性的认知偏见,这种偏见不仅和视觉错觉一样持久,而且在现实生活中代价高昂——这意味着政府的家长式作风被要求在 - œnudges的帮助下引导人们。自那以后,这些偏见已成为老生常谈。相反,我认为这种对人性的看法受到了 œbias偏见的污染,即即使没有偏见也会发现偏见的倾向。这可能是由于没有注意到小样本统计数据与大样本统计数据的不同,将人们的随机误差误认为是系统误差,或者将智能推断与逻辑错误混淆。大多数经济学家都不知道,许多心理学研究揭示了一种不同的描述,人们似乎对机会、频率和框架有着很大的微调直觉。对文献的系统回顾显示,几乎没有证据表明所谓的偏见在健康、财富或幸福方面可能付出代价。消除偏见是心理学在经济学中发挥积极作用的前提。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Bias Bias in Behavioral Economics
Behavioral economics began with the intention of eliminating the psychological blind spot in rational choice theory and ended up portraying psychology as the study of irrationality. In its portrayal, people have systematic cognitive biases that are not only as persistent as visual illusions but also costly in real life—meaning that governmental paternalism is called upon to steer people with the help of “nudges.†These biases have since attained the status of truisms. In contrast, I show that such a view of human nature is tainted by a “bias bias,†the tendency to spot biases even when there are none. This may occur by failing to notice when small sample statistics differ from large sample statistics, mistaking people’s random error for systematic error, or confusing intelligent inferences with logical errors. Unknown to most economists, much of psychological research reveals a different portrayal, where people appear to have largely fine-tuned intuitions about chance, frequency, and framing. A systematic review of the literature shows little evidence that the alleged biases are potentially costly in terms of less health, wealth, or happiness. Getting rid of the bias bias is a precondition for psychology to play a positive role in economics.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
期刊最新文献
Rationality and Emotionality Interplay and Economic Contributions: A Neuroeconomics Experiment Opportunity Inequality of Property Income Distribution: Measurement, Decomposition, and Comparison Fairness and Arbitration Mechanisms The Effects of Expected Value and Episodic Memory on Preference Reversals Economic Individualism, Perceived Fairness, and Policy Preference: A Cross-Cultural Comparison
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1