4.7 Article

From rational actor to efficient complexity manager: Exorcising the ghost of Homo economicus with a unified synthesis of cognition research

期刊

ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS
卷 114, 期 -, 页码 22-32

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.010

关键词

Unified model; Heuristics; Biases; Analogy; Mental models; Homo efficens

资金

  1. University of British Columbia's Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies [6456]
  2. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada [861-2009-1106, 820-2006-0040, 820-2008-3026, 435-2013-2017]
  3. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada [365144-08]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It is,now commonplace to note that economics' canonical model of humans as rational, self-interested utility-maximizers (Homo economicus) is both descriptively misleading, and often insufficiently predictive. However, certain outdated assumptions tied to Homo economicus persist, often influencing discourse and research design even in sustainability-oriented fields. We argue this 'ghost' of Homo economicus endures because the diversity of findings that confound the canonical model has surfaced across multiple behavioral and cognitive sciences, each with its own terminology and focus area. As such, a unified, accessible synthesis of this new information has yet to emerge. In this paper we review recent insights from across the behavioral and cognitive sciences, and propose an 'efficient complexity manager' (ECM) model (Homo efficens) as the best synthesizing option. The crux of this model is that our species works within biological limits to efficiently filter massive environmental complexity. This is achieved largely through analogical or 'case-based' reasoning. We explain this synthesized model using a series of accessible metaphors. Finally, we speculate on how this model may enrich future sustainable development research insofar as it points to fruitful units of analysis, can stimulate methodological innovation, and provide a more explicit theoretical foundation for the field. (c) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据