Journals / İktisat Politikası Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2015 / Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 2

-

BELİRSİZLİK ALTINDA KARAR ALMA: GELENEKSEL ve MODERN YAKLAŞIMLAR

Pages
1–28
Publication Date
2015-06-30
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

To that end, we emphasize the deficiencies of expected value theory, and then analyze the fundamentals of prospect theory and its relationship between neuroeconomics

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Decision making behaviors of individuals have long been investigated in economics literature.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The expected value theory was criticized since it cannot explain the real world and prospect theory, which is more consistent with human behaviors, was offered as an alternative.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:To that end, we emphasize the deficiencies of expected value theory, and then analyze the fundamentals of prospect theory and its relationship between neuroeconomics
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Beklenen Değer Teorisi · Beklenti Teorisi · Nöroiktisat

Abstract

Decision making behaviors of individuals have long been investigated in economics literature. The expected value theory was criticized since it cannot explain the real world and prospect theory, which is more consistent with human behaviors, was offered as an alternative. On the other side, as a newly emerging field, neuroeconomics explains human behaviors on neurological basis. In this paper, after first reviewing decision making under uncertainty literature, we provide a wide literature review on expected value theory, prospect theory and neuroeconomics. To that end, we emphasize the deficiencies of expected value theory, and then analyze the fundamentals of prospect theory and its relationship between neuroeconomics

Özet

İktisat yazınında bireylerin belirsizlik altında karar alma davranışları çok uzun süredir incelenmektedir. Yazında standartlaşmış olan Beklenen Değer Teorisi gerçek yaşamı açıklayamadığı gerekçesiyle yoğun eleştirilere maruz kalmış, insan davranışlarıyla daha tutarlı olan Beklenti Teorisi kendisine alternatif olarak ortaya atılmıştır. Günümüzde halen gelişmekte olan nöroiktisat da iktisadi davranışların nöroloji temelli olarak açıklama getirilmesi üzerine çalışmalar yapmaktadır.Bu makalede, belirsizlik altında karar alma literatürü ele alındıktan sonra, bireylerin karar alma davranışlarını açıklayan Beklenen Değer Teorisi, Beklenti Teorisi ve nöroiktisat geniş bir şekilde incelenmiştir. Beklenen Değer Teorisinin eksiklikleri vurgulandıktan sonra alternatif yaklaşım olan Beklenti Teorisinin temel özellikleri irdelenmiş ve ardından, nöroiktisadın beklenti teorisiyle olan ilişkisine değinilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

AKSOY, T., ŞAHİN, İ. (2015). -. İktisat Politikası Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 2, 1–28. https://ajindex.com/articles/8377

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (22)

  1. Alada, D., 2000.
  2. İktisat Felsefesi ve Belirsizlik, Bağlam Yayınları,
  3. İstanbul.
  4. Başoğlu, U., Ceylan, A., Parasız, İ., 2001. Finans: Teori, Kurum, Uygulama, Ekin Kitabevi,
  5. Bursa. Braeutigam, S. 2005. “Neuroeconomics: From neural systems to economic behaviour” Brain Research Bulletin, 67,355-360.
  6. Brainard, W., C., 1967. “Uncertainty and Effectiveness of Policy” The American Economic Review, 57: 2, 411-425.
  7. Buğra, A., 2003.
  8. İktisatçılar ve İnsanlar, İletişim Yayınları,
  9. İstanbul.
  10. Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G., ve Prelec, D., 2005. “Neuroeconomics: How Neuroscience Can Inform Economics” Journal of Economic Literature, 43, 9-64.
  11. Cateau, G., 2005. “Monetary Policy under Model and Data-Parameter Uncertainty” Working Paper, http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/res/wp/2005/wp05-6.pdf (erişim tarihi: 20 Şubat 2009).
  12. Dow, C., S., 2004. “Uncertainty and Monetary Policy” Oxford Economic Papers, 56, 539- 5 Fehr, E., ve Camerer, F., C., 2007. “Social Neuroeconomics: The Neural Circuitry of Social Preferences” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11: 10, 419-427.
  13. Kahneman, D., ve Tvertsky, A., 1979. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk” Econometrica, 47: 2, 263-291.
  14. Lee, D., 2006.”Neural basis of quasi-rational decision making” Current Opinion in Neurobiology (www.sciencedirect.com), 16:191-198.
  15. Onatski, W., ve Williams, N., 2003. “Modeling Model Uncertainty” NBER Working Paper No: 9566. Sanfey, A., Loewenstein, G.,McClure, S., ve Cohen, J. 2006. “Neuroeconomics: cross- currents in research on decision-making” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10: 3, 109-116.
  16. Schoemaker, P., J., H., 1982. “The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidences and Limitations” Journal of Economic Literature, 20: 2, 529-563.
  17. Starmer, C., 2000. “Developments in Non-Expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk” Journal of Economic Literature, 38: 2, 332-382.
  18. Trepel, C., Fox, C. R., ve Poldrack, R., A., 2005. “Prospect theory on the brain? Toward a Cognitive Neuroscience of Decision Under Risk” Cognitive Brain Research, 23, 34-50.
  19. Tvertsk, A., ve Kahneman, D., 1992. “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297-323.
  20. Walsh, C., E., 2003.
  21. Monetary Theory and Policy, İkinci Baskı,
  22. MIT Press, London.