Yes, and I'd still argue that psychology's span of breadth is more encompassing. Note that I both studied economics at uni, and have spent considerable time since exploring both the history and current branches of the field. I'm rather familiar with it and my criticisms are rather based on that familiarity.
The relevant questions are:
1. Which field of study encompasses more elements, economics or psychology?
2. Are these fields intersecting, and if so, is one a proper subset of the other or not?
In a Venn diagram sense, how do the sets relate?
Psychology includes numerous branches, fields, divisions, and foci, of which choice determination is only a very small element. See for example:
<https://www.simplypsychology.org/branches-of-psychology.html>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology#Major_schools_of_th...> (specifically schools of thought).
Contrast branches of economics. Numerous, but ... somewhat less expansive as compared with psychology:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_economics#Branches_...>
Note that psychology, economics, sociology, political science, and anthropology all emerged out of what had previously been moral philsophy largely during the 19th century. Divisions and focus are somewhat arbitrary and strongly influenced by institutions and other pressures --- in the case of economics, political policy influences are notoriously strong, though other disciplines aren't immune from same. But if I had to matryoshka the two, I'd nest econ within psych.
