Talk:Behavioral economics

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 October 2020 and 4 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bcasano (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jtc7 (article contribs).

Nic for econ (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Hi all, I'm a student editor. I just made some changes and added some more on heuristics. I felt some of the information in behavioural finance wasn't as relevant to behavioural economics and condensed it down. The information in this article is well referenced and accurate but in parts doesn't read with total clarity so that was the focus of my edits :))

'Failed' FAC

Well, this failed the FAC because no one really seemed to comment on it. I'll re-nominate it when I have addressed to some extent the only somewhat valid criticism - many of the sub-pages are incomplete. From the FAC page:

Partial self-nom - I added to pgreenfinch's original behavioural finance page. I think it's a good and well referenced article on a fairly interesting subset of finance/economics. But I might be biased :) Psychobabble

• Support - yeh its interesting AlbinoMonkey 12:38, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Object for now. Wiki needs definetly much more work on economic subjects and I am happy to see activity in this field, but this article is far from ready from featured status. Did you notice there are two 'Criticisms' sections?? I fixed various minor problems, but this needs more interlinks and expansion, especially where there are lists like 'Behavioral economics topics' or 'Key Figures'. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:16, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The outline of the article is split between behavioral finance and behavioral economics, the two criticism sections are specific to each of those sub-sections. I realise more needs to be done in the sub-topics, I wasn't sure if that was a criterion for having the main page (which is a broad outline of the field) featured. A lot of that stuff I'll fill in when I finish exams. Psychobabble

• Comment on the picture: The only picture is a picture of Daniel Kahneman. The picture had no source/license information, but I've added a probable source and assumed the picture is fair use. Because of that I don't think we should use the picture in the article -- unless I'm mistaken about the license -- because I don't think we should use it as fair use outside Daniel Kahneman. ✏ Sverdrup 23:17, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't know much about this sort of stuff. I assumed if it was OK for the Kahnenman wikipedia articke, it was OK for this one.Psychobabble

---

I've gone and made a seperate page for Behavioural economics - I'm an Aussie so I spell the word with a U and didn't realise a redirect had been set up from behavoral economics to here. If people who know about this stuff can go look at the page I made and give some opinions as to whether we should merge the info on these two pages that'd be greatly appreciated. Finance and economics are obviously different fields, but the two movements are fairly closely related so it might be worth merging. I'd just like a 2nd opinion before doing so :)

Psychobabble

---

EoT: it seemed to me that the "See also law and economics" didnt belong on the graph with criticisms. Feel free to try it someplace else.

---

BF/BE is one of my pet fields, as you might see in my user's page. Imo, you made a very good job in your behavioural economics page. What is true is that BE and BF are studying more or less the same cognitive and emotional, individual and collective phenomena. But the anomalies that those biases create are a bit different if they take place in financial assets or in goods and services.

Thus the two texts would enrich each other, I think, if merged, with a common section about the human biases at play, and separate sections about the applications in finance and in economics. Btw, I think those biases and anomalies are found not only in markets, but also in public choice.

I suggest that the first of us who find the time to make this combination just do it, or at least start it, but I see no hurry as I think it would need a careful job to make something consistent and comprehensive for the readers.

Btw, not being an English speaker, I have no preference about how to spell behavio(u)ral), even if I use the American spelling that I found more common in the web. Funny thing from a froggy, isn'it ? ;-)--Pgreenfinch 15:35, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Ok, i've got some down time at work, I'm going to make a start on a merger. Thanks for your input. Psychobabble
  • Done. I copied the history section from the other page almost wholesale, expanded the methodology section and created seperate topics/criticisms sections for finance and economics. I added some stuff in the finance section on the equity premium puzzle cause I've looked at it a bit. I'd appreciate feedback :) Psychobabble

Satisfice

Editing "behavioral economics":

2nd paragraph of the "History" section - original sentence: "...reference should be made to the theory of Bounded Rationality by Nobel Laureate Herbert Simon who explained how people irrationally tend to be satisfied, instead of maximizing utility, as generally assumed."

the phrase "tend to be satisfied" is incorrect; it should be "tend to satisfice". The word "satisfice" was specifically coined by Herbert Simon to describe a type of quasi-optimizing behavior, in contrast to "utility maximizing". This is, it is a new technical term, not an ordinary English word.

Additions to this Wiki

Hello all! I am a student editor who has recently been reading into economics and writing a paper pertaining to how economics, culture, and the political economy all intertwine. I believe that behavioral economics plays a big role in how these three things interact with each other and wanted to add my two cents on what I think could be added to this page. Since this is a completed article, I am going to add in pieces where I believe that information is missing:

• How culture influences economic behavior/decisions
• How the political economy of one's country of residence plays into their individual behavioral economic choices
• Nature vs. nurture arguments and how they apply to this field

I have already uncovered some sources with which I was going to do my initial research to incorporate these themes into this Wikipedia page. Before I do this, I wanted to post on the Talk page so that you could all see the sources I was looking at and ask if there are any other sources out there that you are aware of that may be good to review too. In addition, please feel free to comment or ask any questions you may have! Any suggestions are welcome.

Sources to review for these claims:

• Weber, Roberto, and Robyn Dawes. “Behavioral Economics.” The Handbook of Economic Sociology, Second Edition, Edited by Neil J. Smelser and Richard Swedberg, STU - Student edition, Princeton University Press, 2005, pp. 90–108, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt2tt8hg.9.
• GALSTON, WILLIAM A. “Economics and Culture in Market Democracies.” The New Challenge to Market Democracies: The Political and Social Costs of Economic Stagnation, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC, 2014, pp. 14–18, www.jstor.org/stable/10.7864/j.ctt1hfr137.7.
• Saint-Paul, Gilles. “The Policy Prescriptions of Behavioral Economics.” The Tyranny of Utility: Behavioral Social Science and the Rise of Paternalism, Princeton University Press, 2011, pp. 77–96, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7swnb.12.
• Amir, On, and Orly Lobel. “Stumble, Predict, Nudge: How Behavioral Economics Informs Law and Policy.” Columbia Law Review, vol. 108, no. 8, 2008, pp. 2098–2137. www.jstor.org/stable/40041817.

Schmids (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi all, I did some more research regarding what I wanted to post and believe that it fits better under the Cultural economics Wiki page and intend to move my work over there. Schmids (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

"Applied issues" section

The section "Applied issues" on this article, the title of which is "Behavioral economics", has a subsection titled "Behavioral Economics", and includes the following bizarre text: Technical analysts consider behavioral Economics to be behavioral economics' "academic cousin" and the theoretical basis for technical analysis.

What is the intention here? Is this the result of a mangled merge? Was the editor somehow trying to make a distinction between title-case and lower-cases? I don't have the expertise to correct this error, but clearly something is amiss. 130.88.123.107 (talk) 12:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I notice that this bizarre situation arises from this edit which is just a find-and-replace 'finance' with 'Economics'. I will revert it. 130.88.123.107 (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

4516162114512+2 2+985+6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.64.140.185 (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Behavioral Finance has emerged has a new field and is independent of Behavioral economics. The concepts do overlap because they have a origin form the subject of psychology, that is why I think Behavioral Finance needs a separate page from its application point of view.

Six Nobel prizes?

As of 2021-04-09 the section on "Nobel laureates" ends with, "A total of six Nobel prizes have been awarded for behavioral research."

HOWEVER, the reference given only discusses Kahneman. Can someone please add a list of the six with the dates of award and appropriate links? (If you'd like help with constructing a table, see Help:Table.) DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

References