the second is fundamentally different from the unambiguous unconditioned reflex response “stimulus – re-
stock". More recently, the integration of emotions (System 1) with
“Cognitive” system of purposeful behavior (System 2). Integral integral
Del, able to combine both systems, was proposed by the American neurophysiological
Edomund Rawls (Rolls, 2000). According to Rawls theory, information about the stimulus
into the basal ganglia of the brain and including the striatum, causes involuntary behavioral
response based on the emotional characteristics of the stimulus. If processing
and the comparison of stimuli occur with the involvement of the frontal cortex, then the person verbalizes
actions by activating a multi-level syntactic planning system. In the last
In this case, the frontal areas provide arbitrary decisions.
Another influential American researcher is Joseph Ledoux (LeDoux, 2000).
swarm "signal at the very initial stage of processing sensory information. This “ko-
how many tens of milliseconds. However, the emotional zones of the brain also receive
information about the stimulus from the cortical regions along the “in-depth” pathway of processing in-
decision in an extreme situation can cost a person life, despite the fact that
in this case, more detailed decoding of the information occurs. In addition, according to me
to Ledoux (LeDoux, 2000), breaking the bonds between the two paths mentioned above can
(for example, watchful attention to tree branches and sticks in the forest, reminiscent of
such a person begins to see snakes everywhere and always. " In general, preliminary (rough)
arbitrary attention. When it is necessary to make a quick decision, the
em System 1, ahead of System 2. Thus, the factor of limited time seriously
affects the problem solving mechanism.
It turns out that both systems — arbitrary and involuntary — are equally important.
reference. A violation in one of the systems may lead to the choice of sub-optimal strategic
Gui. The results of neuropsychological studies show that functioning
System 2 rational decision making is closely related to the accuracy of information processing
System 1. Patients with bilateral damage to the lower areas of the frontal
bark (orbitofrontal cortex, OFC) suffer serious violations of the adoption of the most
innovative solutions (Bechara and Damasio, 2005). Watching your OFC patients
American neurologist Antonio Damasio revealed that they had certain difficulties during the
working day, interacting with friends and spouses, etc. Often committed
actions taken by OFC patients lead to financial failures (for example, to lose
sham on the stock exchange), breaking with relatives or losing friends, as if patients were
They are not in their own interests, but to their own detriment. It turned out that such people suffer certain
va. Interestingly, their ability to solve problems that do not require emotional evaluation,
remains unchanged: having a normal or high intelligence, they, nevertheless,
remain unable to avoid mistakes in more “emotional” situations (Bechara et
al., 1997). For example, choosing a meeting place for an ordinary person is easy:
believing his own feelings, he will choose his favorite cafe, which suits both parties.
In a similar situation, the patient Antonio Damasio will start an endless rational
enumeration of all suitable places with careful comparison of prices, location, quality ...
At the same time, he will most likely ignore the emotions of the partner, who is surprised.
and annoyance, tired of endless choices. Paradoxically, excessive rationality
As a result, irrational behavior can result.
Usually patients with emotional disorders and inability to accept
solutions are investigated using a special test-game (Iowa Gambling Task). In this
The game uses four decks of cards: A, B, C and D. The subject is invited to try
to win as much money as possible. The game has 100 rounds, during which the player can
choose one card from any deck. Opening a card in two decks (A and B) will
carries a large and immediate gain, but with continued use leads
to long-term losses (we shall call them - long-term losses ), significantly exceeding
losses in other decks (C and D), the use of which will lead to more modest
momentary gain, but also to the absence of losses in the future. Subject himself you-
takes what deck he draws a card from and after several rounds the healthy test subjects
are beginning to give preference to “good” C and D decks, which bring a large amount of
marginal profit, and avoid the unfortunate decks A and B, which bring total loss.
Damasio patients behaved differently: not only did they not avoid the "bad" decks, but even
the swarm preferred them.
As was shown in one of the studies (Bechara and Damasio, 2005) using
the galvanic skin response method (GSR) to measure the emotional response
of the subjects, OFC patients lack the ability to predict the consequences
associated with possible long-term losses. Expressed emotional feelings
OFC patient shares in situations of choosing cards from deck A and B, unlike healthy ones
subjects were not identified. Thus, in the absence of the ability to foresee
the consequences of their behavior, patients are not able to avoid painful losses.
They continued to choose unlucky decks just as they would behave in
life is irrational. Moreover, patients continued to choose again and again
unhappy decks of cards even after they were fully aware of the consequences
their actions. Thus, it becomes clear that the activities of emotional
brain areas involved in rational behavior. Lack of emotion leads to a peculiar
dissociation between what we say or know and how we behave. In the usual
life emotional reactions allow us to avoid those actions that can
lead to unfortunate consequences. Moreover, such an intuitive choice is still
until the realization of the consequences of our behavior (Bechara et al., 1997), while the OFC-
patient behavior correction does not occur even after realizing the possible consequences
consequences of a non-optimal choice.
An elegant study (Shiv et al., 2005) of OFC patients showed that in particular
cases, on the contrary, their behavior is more in line with economic models of rational
behavior than healthy subjects, for the reason that the first adopted
These decisions have nothing to do with the emotional experience of previous decisions. In this
research in solving a specially designed problem, where the risk is also
tic led to greater gain, healthy subjects lost OFC patients,
since, as a result of alternating losses and wins, conservatives were developed
strategy, becoming more and more cautious from round to round, which did not occur
with OFC patients making more risky decisions.
In general, it is well known that risk appetite is mediated by emotional experiences.
volume and momentary experiences associated, for example, with current results
behavior. So, R. Thaler and E. Johnson (Thaler and Johnson, 1990) demonstrated that
the person who lost a significant amount of money showed an increased propensity
to risk when making further decisions. Thaler and Johnson called this phenomenon break
even effect. After a big win that cannot be completely lost in the next
The following rounds of the game also showed an emotional boost, which was accompanied by
the increased risk arising from the guaranteed possibility of “remaining at
their own ”( house money effect ). Similar effects can be observed outside the
periational laboratory, for example, in the Deal or No Deal TV game
(Post et al., 2008). In this popular western television show, the main prize is
There is a huge amount — often more than a million dollars. The participants of the game are located
in front of 26 sealed suitcases, in which there are different amounts of money - from
1 dollar to 5 million dollars. Of course, participants in the game do not know how much is
in a particular tightly closed suitcase, but in each round of the game the participant saves
from one of the 26 suitcases, so that by the end of the game, leave only one suitcase with
maximum winnings. Every suitcase that a player clears from the game will immediately
gets hidden, and its contents are announced: with a successful choice, the player gets rid of
given with a minimum gain (say, $ 1), and in case of failure, he can withdraw from
games and the maximum gain of $ 5 million. The key point of the game is
that, before the player makes another choice, which suitcase should be removed from
games and open, the host offers him some amount of money in exchange for stopping
games. Trade is accompanied by the question: “Deal or No Deal?” (“Agreed?”). At the site
nickname of the game, thus, there is a choice: take a chance and continue the game by opening (deleting) the following
suitcase, or take no risks and take the money . The structure of the television game allows
em economists to study the impact that has just made a player decision
his further choice: whether to risk or not in the next round. Analysis of the games showed that
subjects actually tend to take risks by demonstrating a break even effect if
tea is taken out of the game the maximum gain, and house money effect , successfully removing the mini
maximum winnings (Post et al., 2008).
In a recent neuroeconomic study, Kaisa Hütonen and co-authors
(Hytönen et al., 2010) imitated the conditions of a TV show to study neural processes
owls responsible for the above effects , which lead to risky decisions
niyam The computer version of the game allowed the researchers to call and compare the
brain changes during decision-making, like after removing a suitcase with a small
which amount of money (thereby increasing the likelihood that the game has remained
us with a larger amount of money), and after the suitcase with a large
amount of money, as well as in intermediate situations. The study showed that
increased risk tendency (both after a loss and after a win) is associated
with increased activity of the emotional areas of the brain, such as the insular cortex, and diminished
activity of those areas that are responsible for rational decision making aspects
Diy (DLPFC). Thus, it is possible to find out about whether a person will risk.
the activation of neural networks of “automatic” System 1 and “cognitive”
Systems 2. A study by Kaisa Hütonen and colleagues (Hytönen et al., 2010) shows that
the operation of an automatic system may be a source of irrational propensity
risk based on past emotional experience, the impact of which
According to numerous neuroeconomic studies, it is
man's acceptance of a variety of decisions
Comments
To leave a comment
NEUROECONOMICS
Terms: NEUROECONOMICS