Mental Models in Economics
Abstract
It’s a well-known fact that contention of organizational management depends not only on current situation in managed system in managed system and its nearest surroundings, but also on persons who make decisions. Their experience, professionalism, intuition and feelings influence directly on quality of managerial decisions and finally they influence on positions of managed system in time and space. Social acceptance of this influence caused development of behavioral economics as a new branch of economic science. The last one explores the process of human decision-making in day-to-day life and the ways of its’ improving on the base of hidden abilities in human consciousness. In the same time behavioral economics tries to adopt the best achievements of the previous economical concepts (classical and neo-classical) on the evolutional way of civilizations’ development, as well as find the best practical using for them.
One of the most important achievements in neo-classical economics is a model approach. It seems that in the behavioral economy, it will take its rightful place. In the present article, there’s an attempt to disclose the composition and content of mental models, which will form the basis of the model choice in the conditions of the behavioral economy. The main difficulty of such an idea is that the elements that form mental models, the connections between them and the environment are of an immaterial nature and are not given to us in sensations.
References
1. Amplibi S. (2018). Identifying stability in economic systems. Sistemnyj analiz v ehkonomike – 2018 [System analysis in economics – 2018]. Collection of reports from the 5th International scientific and practical conference – biennale. Moscow, Prometei, pp. 37–44 (in Russian).
2. Ariely D. (2010). Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that shape our decisions. Moscow, Mann, Ivanov & Ferber, 296 p. (in Russian).
3. Artebro Th. (2003). The return to independent inventor evidence of unrealistic optimism, risk seeking or skewness loving. Economic Journal, no. 113, pp. 226–265.
4. Barber B., Odean T. (2006). Boys will be boys: gender, overconfidence and common stock investment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, no. 116, pp. 261–353.
5. Drogobyckij I. N. (2014). Models of reforming processes in the system of high education. Nacional’nye interesy: prioritety i bezopasnost’. [National interests: priorities and safety], no. 35, pp. 2–18 (in Russian).
6. Drogobyckij I. N. (2016). System cybernation of organizational management. Moscow, Vuzovskii Uchebnik, INFRA-M, 333 p. (in Russian)
7. Gharajedaghi J. (2011). System thinking: Managing chaos and complexity. Minsk, Grevtsov Publisher Books, 480 p. (in Russian).
8. Kahneman D. (2016). Thinking, fast and slow. Moscow, ATS Publishers, 653 p. (in Russian)
9. Kahneman D., Lovallo D. (2003). Delusions of success: How optimism undermines executives decisions. Harvard Business Review, no. 81, pp. 56–119.
10. Kahneman D., Tversky A. (2003). Rational choice and the framing of decisi. Psihologicheskij zhurnal [Psychological Journal], vol. 4, no. 24, pp. 31–42 (in Russian)
11. Lovallo D., Kahneman D. (1993). Timid choices and bold forecasts: A cognitive perspective on risk taking. Management Science, no. 39.
12. O’Connor J., McDermott I. (2006). The art of systems thinking. Essential skills for creativity and problem solving. Moscow, Alpina Business Books, 256 p. (in Russian)
13. Olk P., Rosenzweig Ph. (2010). The halo effect and the challenge of management inquiry: A dialog between Phil Rosenzweig and Paul Olk. Journal of Management Inquiry, no. 19, pp. 48–102.
14. Thaler R., Sunstein C. (2018). Choice Architecture: Improving our decisions about health, wealth and happiness. Moscow, Mann, Ivanov & Ferber, 240 p. (in Russian).
Review
For citations:
Drogobytskyi I.N. Mental Models in Economics. Economics of Contemporary Russia. 2019;(1):7-16. (In Russ.)
Views:
1073
Email this article 