Ir al contenido principal

WE DON'T KNOW WHY WE DECIDE WHAT WE DECIDE

The consumer does not know at all why he chooses what he buys, although he then elaborates brainy arguments to justify himself. The impact on Economic Science.

Although it seems difficult to accept, economic decisions are practically taken before reaching consciousness, which is the place where economists always believed was made the economic calculation, the rational cost-benefit equation. I have had the opportunity to read innumerable neuroscientific papers on the subject, and all agree that the limbic (emotional) basis of economic decisions is very powerful, including the orbitofrontal cortex (which would emit the "value signal"), and always below the level of consciousness.

The neuroscientist John-Dylan Haynes (of the Max Planck Institute of Germany), perhaps one of the most advanced in these subjects, has shown, via neuroimaging, that we practically decided a choice seconds before we are aware of it, through refined subcortical and cortical mechanisms, which we do not control consciously. Haynes adds that there is evidence that a decision is encoded in circuits of the prefrontal and parietal cortex up to 10 seconds before it enters consciousness, reflecting the functioning in the brain of high-level networks control areas, which begin to prepare a decision long before it enters the conscience, and that predetermines it in a very high percentage.

Undoubtedly, these ideas are quite revolutionary for Economics, since they go against the traditional consensus of the rational optimizing agent, besides since for decades it is known that our memory, the base of comparison to decide, works highly to unconscious level.

"The impression that we are able to freely choose between different possible courses of action is fundamental to our mental life. However, it has been suggested that this subjective experience of freedom is no more than an illusion and that our actions are initiated by unconscious mental processes long before we become aware of our intention to act". (Haynes, The Unconscious Determinants of Free Decisions in the Human Brain, Nature, 2008, pag. 1)

But these discoveries should not surprise us so much, it has been known for some time that the conscious part corresponds to only 10% of the energy consumed by the brain, while 90% is consumed by our unconscious, which confirms its enormous participation in decision-making , even if we do not realize it.

The brain consumes the same energy when it is doing research tasks that when it is sleeping. This situation is due to the fact that constantly, generally unconsciously, it is receiving and processing internal and external information. It is always alert, constantly evaluating alternatives to possible future situations that may pose a danger to the survival of its owner.

We do not know why we choose what we buy

Going to the bottom of the subject, the consumer does not know at all why he chooses what he buys. The decision is made, in large part, below the threshold of consciousness, where our most instinctive biology and our most emotional parts carve strong. In the unconscious, the interest for the product, the purchase intention and the loyalty to the brand are elucidated. These elements correspond to the construction, partly induced by the promotional campaigns, of desires and loyalty.

The mechanism works in the following way: certain sensory stimuli (induced by large corporations) activate deep areas of our brain. The reward system (limbic and subconscious), especially the nucleus accumbens, is put into action and drives to seek food, sex and safety, the three basic pillars of human survival. The brands, which I repeat are creations of large corporations to induce, seek to activate brain areas that regulate the sense of belonging, making us part of a group, a tribe, a community. All this, together with the natural tendency to imitate and / or empathize with everything that surrounds us (mirror neurons), leads us to consume much less rationally than we believe, pulling down the dogma of free choice, the sovereignty of the consumer.

To sum up

Our rationality has a very high unconscious component, although it is difficult to accept it, especially those people who think they are too rational and self-controlled. The day that the vast community of social scientists fully understands these concepts, which come from Cognitive Neuroscience, they will have to start rewriting many chapters of university books. And believe me, that time is getting closer.

Author: Sebastián Laza

Sebastián Laza is a Behavioral Economist, specialized in the interrelation between Cognitive Neuroscience and Decision Making.

He also is the Executive Director of the Applied Neurosciences to Management and Economics Program (National University of Cuyo, Argentine) and the Neuroeconomics's Coordinator of the  of ​​the Latin American Institute of Applied Neurosciences (http://neurociencias.online/).

Additionally, he is the author of NEUROECONOMICS: THE DISRUPTIVE PATH (2018): https://www.amazon.com/NEUROECONOMICS-DISRUPTIVE-PATH-Sebastian-Laza/dp/1718177844

Comentarios

Entradas populares de este blog

Marcadores Somáticos: Atajos para la Toma de Decisiones

La hipótesis del marcador somático, de la mano de Antonio Damasio, ha sido muy relevante al momento de comprender el papel que juega la emoción en la toma de decisiones. La idea consiste en que las consecuencias de una decisión producen en la persona una determinada reacción emocional que es subjetiva, que se puede “vivenciar”, y que a su vez es somática, es decir se traduce en reacciones musculares, neuroendócrinas o neurofisiológicas. Esta respuesta emocional a su vez se puede asociar con consecuencias, ya sean negativas o positivas, que se repiten con cierta constancia en el tiempo y que provoquen dicha respuesta. Este mecanismo de asociación es el que produce lo que Damasio llama “marcador somático” y que influye en las decisiones a tomar a futuro. De esta manera, la reacción emotiva pasada influye en la toma de decisiones futura, posibilitando la anticipación de las consecuencias y guiando el proceso de resolución final. En este sentido se afirma que los marcadores

UN MUNDO DE GENTE APURADA

¿Se han puesto a pensar por qué andamos por la vida tan apurados? Dormimos poco, comemos apurados, compramos apurados, manejamos apurados, estudiamos apurados, multitasking en la oficina, zapping permanente en tv, en la música del auto, etc. VAMOS A EXPLOTAR. Se nos pasa el año volando, los días volando, las horas… Es frenético el ritmo.  ¿Pero quién nos apura? Los economistas decimos que “la gente prefiere ir más rápido o más lento, es decir elegir más a corto o a largo plazo, en función de lo que llamamos  tasa de preferencia temporal. Y está comprobado que,  en promedio, la gente suele valorar más obtener recompensa ahora, aunque sea menor, que esperar un tiempo Y OBTENER ALGO MAYOR A FUTURO.  No queremos esperar… lo queremos todo ya.  Podés legir rendir para un 10, pero te querés sacar de encima la materia ya, estudiás menos y aprobás con un 7.  Podés elegir esperar una semana, comparar precios y modelos, y comprarte el teléfono móvil nuevo … pero no… te en

DECIDIR NO DECIDIR: EL SESGO DE OMISIÓN

La mayoría de las veces, la gente, ante el riesgo, elige no actuar, con tal de no fallar. Tememos errar por naturaleza, y más aún tememos a las consecuencias del yerro en la acción, entonces preferimos la omisión.   De esta forma, cuando nos enfrentamos a una decisión riesgosa, la forma en que nos presentan el problema es muy importante. No es lo mismo presentar un problema en el que el individuo puede experimentar cierto nivel de pérdidas si falla en su acción, a otro en el que el individuo puede sufrir el mismo nivel de pérdidas, pero en esta ocasión cuando deja de actuar. El ser humano generalmente va a preferir fallar por omisión que por acción. El ejemplo clásico es el dilema del padre que debe decidir si vacunar a los hijos ante una enfermedad mortal, pero cuya vacuna tiene efectos secundarios. De esta forma, el padre debe decider si vacuna a su hijo contra una efermedad mortal de la que el hijo puede contagiarse naturalmente con un probabilidad del 1%. Si le pone l