Microeconomic theory maintains that purchases are driven by a combination of consumer preference and price. Using event-related fMRI, we investigated how people weigh these factors to make purchasing decisions. Consistent with neuroimaging evidence suggesting that distinct circuits anticipate gain and loss, product preference activated the nucleus accumbens (NAcc), while excessive prices activated the insula and deactivated the mesial prefrontal cortex (MPFC) prior to the purchase decision. Activity from each of these regions independently predicted immediately subsequent purchases above and beyond self-report variables. These findings suggest that activation of distinct neural circuits related to anticipatory affect precedes and supports consumers' purchasing decisions.

Consumers often behave differently than they would ideally like to behave. We propose that an anticipatory pain of paying drives "tightwads" to spend less than they would ideally like to spend. "Spendthrifts," by contrast, experience too little pain of paying and typically spend more than they would ideally like to spend. This article introduces and validates the "spendthrift-tightwad" scale, a measure of individual differences in the pain of paying. Spending differences between tightwads and spendthrifts are greatest in situations that amplify the pain of paying and smallest in situations that diminish the pain of paying.They were so skewed and squint-eyed in their minds, their misering or extravagance mocked all reason.(Dante's Inferno, "Canto VII: The Hoarders and the Wasters") E conomic models of decision making are consequentialist in nature. They assume that decision makers choose between alternative courses of action based on a cognitive evaluation of the desirability (i.e., "utility") and likelihood of their consequences. This does not, however, imply that consequentialist decision makers are devoid of *Scott I. Rick (srick@wharton.upenn.edu) is a visiting professor of operations and information management at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania,

Neuroeconomics has further bridged the once disparate fields of economics and psychology. Such convergence is almost exclusively attributable to changes within economics. Neuroeconomics has inspired more change within economics than within psychology because the most important findings in neuroeconomics have posed more of a challenge to the standard economic perspective. Neuroeconomics has primarily challenged the standard economic assumption that decision making is a unitary process--a simple matter of integrated and coherent utility maximization--suggesting instead that it is driven by the interaction between automatic and controlled processes. This article reviews neuroeconomic research in three domains of interest to both economists and psychologists: decision making under risk and uncertainty, intertemporal choice, and social decision making. In addition to reviewing new economic models inspired by this research, we also discuss how neuroeconomics may influence future work in psychology.

No abstract