Judgment and Behavioral Decision Theory WF-PS-N-JBDT
The seminar covers the following biases and fallacies:
(1) the anchoring bias (Furnham & Boo, 2011);
(2) the base rate neglect in the cab problem in a context such as predicting the medical diagnosis problem (Koehler, 1996);
(3) the interactions between the conjunction fallacy and memory for the Linda problem (Brainerd, Holliday, Nakamura & Reyna, 2014; cf., Lu, 2016);
(4) biases by the framing effect in risky decisions (Kahneman & Tversky, 1984);
(5) the interactions between the hindsight bias and memory (Blank, Nestler, von Collani & Fischer, 2008);
(6) the preference reversal phenomenon, that is, people's systematically inconsistent preference under different but formally equivalent measures (Tversky, Slovic, & Kahneman, 1990);
(7) the majority rule for the choice between binary, weak-dominant multi-attribute options in individual and group decision making (Lu, & Nieznański, 2017);
(8) Overconfidence in cross-cultural studies;
(9) Gigerenzer and his colleagues’ arguments on heuristics as ecological rationality (Gigerenzer, 2000; Goldstein & Gigerenzer, 2002).
(in Polish) E-Learning
Learning outcome code/codes
Course coordinators
Learning outcomes
Knowledge: Participants know the main fallacies and rules of decision making, Skills: Students are able to interpret empirical research from scientific journals concerning these topics.
Attitudes: Participants are ready to self-standing gathering of knowledge depending on appearing new findings and methods in research literature.
ECTS:
Classes attendance: 30
Preparation for classes and presentations: 40
Preparation for an essay: 30
Sum: 100
ECTS points: 4
Assessment criteria
Each participant’ work is being evaluated according to his or her presentations (2 times preferable) chosen from related judgmental decision-making topics, activity, and a short essay (ca. 1,000 words) written at the end of the semester on a specific topic (e.g., an expanded literature review on the presentation or even an experimental report are warmly welcomed). A minimum of 71% from the total score is needed. Please be noted that there is no examination.
Grades:
100%-95%...5
94%-89%...4,5
88%-83%...4
82%-77%...3,5
76%-71%...3
70% and less…2
Bibliography
Blank, H., Nestler, S., von Collani, G., & Fischer, V. (2008). How many hindsight biases are there? Cognition, 106, 1408-1440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.07.007
Brainerd, C. J., Holliday, R. E., Nakamura, K., & Reyna, V. F. (2014). Conjunction illusions and conjunction fallacies in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 1610–1623. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000017
Furnham, A., & Boo, H. C. (2011). A literature review of the anchoring effect. Journal of Socio-Economics, 40, 35-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2010.10.008
Gigerenzer, G. (2000). Adaptive Thinking: Rationality in the Real World. Oxford University Press.
Goldstein, D. G., & Gigerenzer, G. (2002). Models of ecological rationality: The recognition heuristic. Psychological Review, 109, 75-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.109.1.75
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341-350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.341
Klein, G. A. (2009). Streetlights and Shadows: Searching for the Keys to Adaptive Decision Making. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Koehler, J. J. (1996). The base rate fallacy reconsidered: Descriptive, normative and methodological challenges. Behavioral and Brian Sciences, 19, 1-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00041157
Lu, Y. (2016). The conjunction and disjunction fallacies: Explanations of the Linda problem by the equate-to-differentiate model. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 50, 507-531. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12124-015-9314-6
Lu, Y., & Nieznański, M. (2017). Regulatory focus and self-construal as determinants of the majority rule in individual decision making. Studia Psychologica, 59(4), 280-294. doi: http://doi.org/10.21909/sp.2017.04.745
Ranyard, R., Crozier, W. R., & Svenson, O. (Eds.). (1997). Decision Making: Cognitive Models and Explanations. London and New York: Routledge.
Tversky, A., Slovic, P., & Kahneman, D. (1990). The cause of preference reversal. American Economic Review, 80, 204-271.
Additional information
Additional information (registration calendar, class conductors, localization and schedules of classes), might be available in the USOSweb system: