Hardin Library-University of lowa Mitt ILLiad TN: 444909 @ a x = Q 5 < iii Borrower: Lending String: Patron: TN; 1419851 ‘Advances in health economics and health services research ISSN:0731-2199 Volume: v.20 Issue: no. \ Month/Year: hanes Article Author: Article Title: Anxiety ‘and decision-making; toward @ neuroeconom Print Date: 10/6/2009 07:46:27 AM cat: RAUIO Location: AL. RUS Ve Zo Shipping Address: University of Wisconsin - Madison Memorial Library - Interlibrary Loan 728 State Street Room B106D Madison, WI 53706-1494 Fax: 608-265-5598 Ariel: 128.104.61.85 Email:gzmili@library.wisc.edu NOTES: GMR-RLANXIETY AND DECISION-MAKING: TOWARD A NEUROECONOMICS PERSPECTIVE Andrei C. Miu, Mircea Miclea and Daniel Houser ABSTRACT Purpose ~ This chapter focuses on individual differences in anxiety, by reviewing its neurobiology, cognitive effects, with an emphasis on decision-making, and recent developments in neuroeconomis. Methodology ~ A review and discussion of anxiety and decision-making research. Practical implications ~ This chapter argues that by making the step from emotional states ta individual differences in emotion, neuroeconomies can extend its neurobiological roots and outreach its current clinical relevance. Value of chapter ~ This chapter contributes to the literature on individual differences in emotion and their effects on decision-making, which és increasingly important in mainstream behavioral economics and neuro- ‘Nearoccovonien ‘Adrances in Health Economies and Health Services Research, Volume 20, §5-84 Copyright © 2008 by Emerald Group Publishing Lined Allightsofreprodution lv any form reserved ISSN; 0731-2199/do10.1016/S0731-2199(0820003-8 3556 ANDREI C. MIU ET AL, INTRODUCTION Different people facing the same problem often make different decisions that seem difficult to reconcile with standard expected utility theory. Particularly when the problem involves a high degree of uncertainty and risk, human decision-making often deviates from economic models of rational behavior. Tversky and Kahneman explained this phenomenon with their gtoundbreaking identification of heuristics that systematically bias decision-making (Tversky & Kalneman, 1974). This paradigm shift set the stage for a boom in behavioral economics, along with a systematic interest individual differences in decision-making Behavioral economies, and more recently, neuroeconomics, have subse- quently become more interested in emotion and the individual differences related to emotion. In this respect, behavioral economics parallels cognitive psychology, which previously separated emotion from cognitive provesses (Neisser, 1967), but now extensively studies emotion and cognition interactions in mainstream science (for review, see Dalgleish & Power, 1999; Damasio, 2000; Dolan, 2002). Similarly, behavioral economics has become more receptive to the potential role of emotion in adaptive decision- making. As a result, it no longer adheres to the earlier view that people behave more rationally to the extent that they can free themselves of emotion. Originally, neither psychologists nor economists fully appreciated the idea that emotions could have a positive role in decision-making, They ‘exemplified the representiveness heuristic in scientific thinking by consider- ing only those emotions (¢.g., social anxiety) that subjectively stood out, essentially because they interfered with cognition. The reason for this is that traditional methods of measuring emotion relied mostly on evalwative reports. In fact, psychological research only recently began to dominantly view emotions as multidimensional subjective, behavioral, and psychologi- cal responses. The change occurred in part due to the realization that: (2) emotions reflect states of activation in two complementary appetitive and defensive motivational systems, and (b) these systems may have evolved independently of a link to a developed language system. Both insights contributed to the ensuing shift from subjective reports to behavioral and physiological measures of emotions (for review, see Bradley & Lang, 2007), These theoretical and methodological changes in studying emotions stemmed from multidisciplinary efforts bridging psychology, physiology, and neuroscience, Such collaborative efforts were instrumental in helping scholars to understand the effects of emotional responses.