Response by Henry Krystal

I wish to thank the discussants for their interesting comments, helpful criticism and suggestions. From the onset, I want to voice my wholehearted agreement with two points made by some of the discussants forcefully, and by others very subtly and kindly. I agree completely that with this paper, my amateur standing as a student of economics is not at all jeopardized.

In addition, while I do call for a psychoanalytic study of the behavioral aspects of economics, I have not claimed to have accomplished such a study. The case illustrations (as well as the three cases which I eliminated for the sake of brevity) were offered only as a reminder that in our everyday work we observe that emotional forces invade and modify the economic behavior of all the people with whom we come in contact. Dr. Saver is correct that observations made in a dyadic situation cannot be translated into inferences about group behavior. However, in our work we gain information about our patients' economic behavior, their behavior within groups, and the behavior of their groups. Group studies cannot be made by behavioristic observation of the entire group. After all, a group has no mind, no more than it has a torso. (1) Social scientists, students of group dynamics, and economists have to do their research as we do: mostly by studying one individual at a time, even in a group setting.

My point is that the studies of economic behavior of groups should be enriched in the manner that Freud enriched the “group psychology” of LeBonn. (2) The present concepts of psychological economics of the interaction within families and groups concerned

with economic decisions are naive and simplistic. Katona's consideration of intra-family and intra-group financial influences is limited to such statements as “The husband and wife appear to be aware of each other's buying plans.” There is an inattention to the effect of family dynamics on economic behavior. All forces other than the rational decision-making are expec