Groupthink – Psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people Herd mentality – Tendency to adopt group beliefs and behaviors Moral panic – Mass psychogenic illness (MPI), also called mass sociogenic illness, mass psychogenic disorder, epidemic hysteria or mass hysteria, involves the spread of illness symptoms through a population where there is no infectious agent responsible for contagion. It is the rapid spread of illness signs and symptoms affecting members of a cohesive group, originating from a nervous system disturbance involvi 1998 East Java ninja scare – East Java killings of suspected sorcerers Body-centred countertransference – Experience in psychotherapy Contagious depression – Spread of depression among a social group Conversion disorder – Former psychiatric diagnosis Culture-bound syndrome – Psychiatric and somatic symptoms experienced within a specific culture Day-care sex-abuse hysteria – Moral panic and series of prosecutions, one example of satanic panic Folie à deux – Shared psychosis, a psychotic disorder (from the French for "a madness shared by two") Groupthink – Psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people Herd mentality – Tendency to adopt group beliefs and behaviors Moral panic – Fear that some evil threatens society Hypochondriasis – Excessive fear of developing illness Hysterical contagion – Psychological phenomenon Satanic panic – Widespread moral panic alleging abuse Sick building syndrome – Symptoms of illness attributed to a building Social contagion – Spontaneous spread of behavior or emotions among a group Jones of the Tennessee Department of Health compiled the following symptoms based on their commonality in outbreaks occurring in 1980–1990: == Causes and risk factors == MPI is distinct from other types of collective or mass delusions by involving physical symptoms. The young women that made up these convents were sometimes forced there by family. Once accepted, they took vows of chastity and poverty. Their lives were highly regimented and often marked by strict disciplinary action. The nuns would exhibit a variety of behaviors, usually attributed to demonic possession. They would often use crude language and exhibit suggestive behaviors. In the English translation of Hecker's The Epidemics of the Middle Ages (1844), the translator and 18th century epidemiologist Benjamin Guy Babington included a personal note of his in the Hysteria section of The Dancing Mania chapter. Kerchoff coordinated the interview of affected and unaffected workers at the factory, and summarized his findings: Strain – those affected were more likely to work overtime frequently and provided the majority of the family income. Many were married with children. Affected persons tended to deny their difficulties. Kerchoff postulates that such were "less likely to cope successfully under conditions of strain." Results seemed consistent with a model of social contagion. Groups of affected persons tended to have strong social ties. Those with strong social ties tended to have similar reactions to the supposed gas, which only one unaffected woman reported smelling. No gas was detected in tests of the data center. === In schools === In 1962, the Tanganyika laughter epidemic was an outbreak of laughing attacks, rumored to have occurred in or near the village of Kanshasa on the western coast of Lake Victoria in what is now Tanzania, eventually affecting 14 different schools and over 1,000 people. On the morning of Thursday 7 October 1965, at a girls' school in Blackburn in England, several girls complained of dizziness. Some fainted. The condition, known as resignation syndrome (Swedish: uppgivenhetssyndrom), is believed to only exist among the refugee population in Sweden, where it has been prevalent since the early part of the 21st century. Commentators state "a degree of psychological contagion" is inherent to the condition, by American Family of Family Physicians: 15 Dec. 2000. Web. 28 Nov. 2009. [3] Archived 2011-06-06 at the Wayback Machine Kerchoff, Alan C. "Analyzing a Case of Mass Psychogenic Illness." Mass Psychogenic Illness: A Social Psychological Analysis. Ed. Colligan et al. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1982. 5–19. Print. Mass, Weir E. "Mass sociogenic illness." CMAJ 2005; 172: 36. Web. 14 Dec. 2009. [4] Moss, P. D. and C. P. McEvedy. "An epidemic of overbreathing among schoolgirls." British Medical Journal 2(5525) (1966):1295–1300. Web. 17 Dec. 2009. Phoon, W. H. "Outbreaks of Mass Hysteria at Workplaces in Singapore: Some Patterns and Modes of Presentation." Mass Psychogenic Illness: A Social Psychological Analysis. Ed. Colligan et al. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1982. 21–31. Print. Radovanovic, Z (1996). "On the Origin of Mass Casualty Incidents in Kosovo, Yugoslavia, in 1990". European Journal of Epidemiology. 12 (1): 101–13. doi:10.1007/bf00144437. PMID 8817187. S2CID 7676802. Singer, Jerome. "Yes Virginia, There Really Is a Mass Psychogenic Illness." Mass Psychogenic Illness: A Social Psychological Analysis. Ed. Colligan et al. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1982. 21–31. Print. Stahl, Sydney; Lebedun, Morty (1974). "Mystery Gas: An Analysis of Mass Hysteria". Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 15 (1): 44–50. doi:10.2307/2136925. JSTOR 2136925. PMID 4464323. Waller, John (2009). "Looking Back: Dancing plagues and mass hysteria". The Psychologist. 22 (7): 644–47. Watson, Rory (1999-07-17). "Coca-Cola health scare may be mass sociogenic illness". British Medical Journal. 319 (7203): 146. doi:10.1136/bmj.319.7203.146a. PMC 1174603. PMID 10406745. Weir, Erica (2005-01-04). "Mass sociogenic illness". Canadian Medical Association Journal. 172 (1): 36. doi:10.1503/cmaj.045027. PMC 543940. PMID 15632400. Wessely, Simon (1987). "Mass hysteria: two syndromes?". Psychological Medicine. 17 (1): 109–20. doi:10.1017/s0033291700013027. PMID 3575566. S2CID 32597423.

Behavioral economics is the study of the psychological (e.g. cognitive, behavioral, affective, social) factors involved in the decisions of individuals Behavioral economics is the study of the psychological (e.g. cognitive, behavioral, affective, social) factors involved in the decisions of individuals or institutions, and how these decisions deviate from those implied by traditional economic theory. Behavioral economics is primarily concerned with the bounds of rationality of economic agents. Behavioral models typically integrate insights from p Behavioral economics is the study of the psychological (e.g. cognitive, behavioral, affective, social) factors involved in the decisions of individuals or institutions, and how these decisions deviate from those implied by traditional economic theory. Behavioral economics is primarily concerned with the bounds of rationality of economic agents. Behavioral models typically integrate insights from psychology, neuroscience and microeconomic theory. Behavioral economics began as a distinct field of study in the 1970s and 1980s, but can be traced back to 18th-century economists, such as Adam Smith, who deliberated how the economic behavior of individuals could be influenced by their desires. The status of behavioral economics as a subfield of economics is a fairly recent development; the breakthroughs that laid the foundation for it were published through the last three decades of the 20th century. Behavioral economics is still growing as a field, being used increasingly in research and in teaching. Behavioral economics is widely used to understand and improve real-world economic decision-making, particularly in areas such as public policy,… E… Behavioral economics is the study of the psychological (e.g. cognitive, behavioral, affective, social) factors involved in the decisions of individuals or institutions, and how these decisions deviate from those implied by traditional economic theory. Behavioral economics is primarily concerned with the bounds of rationality of economic agents. Behavioral models typically integrate insights from psychology, neuroscience and microeconomic theory. Behavioral economics began as a distinct field of study in the 1970s and 1980s, but can be traced back to 18th-century economists, such as Adam Smith, who deliberated how the economic behavior of individuals could be influenced by their desires. By the late 1970s, critiques of expected-utility theory began to crystallize into formal alternative models, most notably prospect theory. To boost the ability of economics to predict accurately, economists started looking to tangible phenomena rather than theories based on human psychology. Psychology was seen as unreliable to many of these economists as it was a new field, not regarded as sufficiently scientific. Though a number of scholars expressed concern towards the positivism within economics, models of study dependent on psychological insights became rare. Psychologists in this field, such as Ward Edwards, Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman began to compare their cognitive models of decision-making under risk and uncertainty to economic models of rational behavior. These developments spurred economists to reconsider how psychology could be applied to economic models and theories. Concurrently, the Expected utility hypothesis and discounted utility models began to gain acceptance. In challenging the accuracy of generic utility, these concepts established a practice foundational in behavioral economics: Building on standard models by applying psychological knowledge. These developments helped set the stage for the field’s broader acceptance in mainstream economics in subsequent decades, alongside growing research output and incorporation into Recent scholarship has raised concerns about the use of vibrational nudges in digital consumer environments, suggesting that haptic feedback—such as subtle mobile phone vibrations—can increase purchasing behavior without conscious awareness. The study questions whether such subliminal tactics cross ethical boundaries by manipulating impulse control in ways that blur the line between persuasion and coercion. It has been remarked that nudging is also a euphemism for psychological manipulation as practiced in social engineering. Herd behavior This is a relatively simple bias that reflects the tendency of people to mimic what everyone else is doing and follow the general consensus. Framing effects People tend to choose differently depending on how the options are presented to them. People tend to have little control over their susceptibility to the framing effect, as often their choice-making process is based on intuition. === Biases and fallacies === While heuristics are tactics or mental shortcuts to aid in the decision-making process, people are also affected by a number of biases and fallacies. He suggests that alternative explanations, such as psychological inertia, better explain certain behaviors like the endowment effect and status quo bias. Traditional economists are skeptical of the experimental and survey-based techniques that behavioral economics uses extensively. Economists typically stress revealed preferences over stated preferences (from surveys) in the determination of economic value. Experiments and surveys are at risk of systemic biases, strategic behavior and lack of incentive compatibility. Variants of the subject outside such formal confines include natural and quasi-natural experiments. === Neuroeconomics === Neuroeconomics is an interdisciplinary field that seeks to explain human decision making, the ability to process multiple alternatives and to follow a course of action. It studies how economic behavior can shape our understanding of the brain, and how neuroscientific discoveries can constrain and guide models of economics. It combines research methods from neuroscience, experimental and behavioral economics, and cognitive and social psychology.

tions in Asch-type tasks ( Berns et al . 2005 ). It also links into neuroeconomic research which shows that real and imagined events are associated with the same neurocognitive response ( Rizzolatti et al . 2002 ; Avenanti et al . 2005 ). What are the lessons for herding models? If economic behaviour, herding included, reflects the interactions of different neurological systems then a neuroeconomic approach, which blends economics, psychology and evolutionary biology with social neuroscience, will provide an explanation of herding as the product of both cognition and emotion. 7. Concluding remarks This paper has explained that an eclectic approach is essential to understanding how and why herding and social influence evolve in an economic and financial context. Ideas and evidence about social influence, imitation and herding have been surveyed using an interdisciplinary approach which brings together a range of ideas from the social and behavioural sciences including economics, sociology, psychology, evolutionary biology and neuroscience. The most powerful explanations for herding and social influence emphasize the dual roles played by reason and emotion. Herding and imitation in economic and financial decision-making may reflect a social learning process but this will be moderated by emotions and by socio-psychological traits determining receptivity to social influence. This paper also confronts the narrow and stark conceptions of rationality seen in modern economic models of herding and social influence. The economist's focus on a dichotomous, binary concept of rationality has meant that important socio-psychological factors have been neglected; and the focus just on the proximate mechanisms that propel herding (e.g. learning, profit-making, reputation building) has led to a neglect of how and why underlying propensities to herd and imitate have evolved to serve more primitive social goals. For future research, in blending insights from economics and other social