Week 1 (September 11): Decisions and Experiments

• Yates JF. (1990). Judgment and decision making. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, chap. 1: An Overview, pp. 1-13.    Manage Yates JF. (1990). Judgment and decision making. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, chap. 1: An Overview, pp. 1-13.

• ( Yates JF. (1990). Judgment and decision making. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Contents and End Materials )

• Halpern DF. (2003). Chapter 6: Thinking As Hypothesis Testing. In Thought and Knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Thinking (4th Ed.)(pp.231-2623). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 

Essay 1 assigned

Week 2 (September 18): EV, EU, Lens Model

• Yates JF. (1990). Judgment and decision making. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, chap. 8: Bedrock Principles, pp. 216-239.

• Yates JF. (1990). Judgment and decision making. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, chap. 9: Expected Utility, pp. 240-281.

• Lichtenstein S, Slovic P. (1971). Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89(1), 46-55. 

• Hastie R & Dawes RM. (2010). Rational Choice in an Uncertain World, 2nd editiion. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, chap. 3: A general framework for judgment, pp. 45-69. 

Essay 2 assigned

Week 3 (September 25): Values

• Kahneman D, Tversky A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.

• Thaler RH. (2008). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 27(1), 15-25.

• Henderson PW, Peterson RA. (1992). Mental accounting and categorization. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51(1), 92-117.

Essay 3 assigned

Week 4 (October 2): Probabilities and Uncertainty

• Curley SP. (2008). Subjective probability. In E Melnick & B Everitt (eds.), Encyclopedia of Quantitative Risk Analysis and Assessment (pp. 1724-1734). Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.

• Yates JF. (1990). Judgment and decision making. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, chap. 5: Coherence, pp. 112-146.

• Curley SP, Browne GJ, Smith GF & Benson PG. (1995). Arguments in the practical reasoning underlying constructed probability responses. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 8(1), 1-20.

• Mandel DR. (2020, January). Assessing and communicating uncertainty in a rapidly changing world. NATO Science & Technology publication. STO-MP-SAS-OCS-ORA-2019 DOI: 10.14339/STO-MP-SAS-OCS-ORA-2019-M-02-1-PDF 

Essay 4 assigned

Week 5 (October 9): Heuristics

• Tversky A & Kahneman D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207-232.

• Tversky A & Kahneman D. (1982). Judgments of and by representativeness. In D Kahneman, P Slovic & A Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 84-98), Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press, 1982, chap. 6.

• Tversky A & Kahneman D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.

Essay 5 assigned

Week 6 (October 16): Expertise

• Ericsson KA. (2006). Protocol analysis and expert thought: Concurrent verbalizations of thinking during experts’ performance on representative tasks. In KA Ericsson, et al. (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance (Chapter 13). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

• Feltovich PJ, Prietula MJ, Ericsson KA. (2006). Studies of expertise from psychological perspectives. In KA Ericsson, et al. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance (Chapter 4). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

• Ericsson KA. (2006). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In KA Ericsson, et al. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance (Chapter 38). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Week 7 (October 23): Type 1/2 Processes

• Kahneman D & Frederick S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In T Gilovich, D Griffin & D Kahneman (eds.), Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (pp. 49-81). Cambridge; Cambridge University Press.

• Evans JSBT & Stanovich KE. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223-241.

Assignment: Research Proposal 1 (Introduction) due
Essay 6 assigned

Week 8 (October 30): Affect: Stress and Regret

• Wichary S, Mata R, Rieskamp J. (2016). Probabilistic inferences under emotional stress: How arousal affects decision processes. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 29(5), 525-538.

• Kirkebøen G, Vasaasen E, Teigen H. (2013). Revisions and regret: The cost of changing your mind. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26(1), 1-12.

• Contractor SH, Kumar P. (2013), The effects of personal agency on regret. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26(3). 304-315.

Essay 7 assigned

Week 9 (November 6): Time

• Kahneman D, Fredrickson BL, Schreiber CA & Redelmeier DA. (1993). When more pain is preferred to less: Adding a better end. Psychological Science, 4(6), 401-405.

• Chajut E, Caspi A, Chen R, Hod M & Ariely D. (2014). In pain thou shalt bring forth children: The peak-and-end rule in recall of labor pain. Psychological Science, 25(12), 2266-2271.

• Pronin E, Olivola CY & Kennedy KA. (2008). Doing unto future selves as you would do unto others: Psychological distance and decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(2), 224-236.

• Lee L, Lee MP, Bertini M, Zauberman G, Ariely D. (2015). Money, time, and the stability of consumer preferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 52(2), 184-199.

Week 10 (November 13): Advice Taking

• Bonaccio S & Dalal RS. (2006). Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101(2), 127-151.

• Yaniv I, Choshen-Hillel S. (2012). Exploiting the wisdom of others to make better decisions: Suspending judgment reduces egocentrism and increases accuracy. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25(5), 427-434.

• Sah S, Loewenstein G. (2015). Conflicted advice and second opinions: Benefits, but unintended consequences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 130, 89-107.

Assignment: Research Proposal 2 (Background/Theory added to Revised Introduction) due
Essay 8 assigned

Week 11 (November 20): Algorithm Use

• Önkal D, Goodwin P, Thomson M, Gönül S, Pollock A. (2009). The relative influence of advice from human experts and statistical methods on forecast adjustments. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 22(4), 390-409.

• Logg JM, Minson JA & Moore DA. (2019). Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 151, 90-103.

• Dietvorst BJ, Bharti S. (2020). People reject algorithms in uncertain decision domains because they have diminishing sensitivity to forecasting error. Psychological Science, 31(10), 1302-1314.

• Kim A, Yang M, Zhang J. (2023). When algorithms err: Differential impact of early vs. late errors on users' reliance on algorithms. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 30(1), 14:1-14:36.

Week 12 (November 27): Project Presentations

Week 13 (December 4): Decision Architecture

• Thaler RH & Sunstein CR. (2008). Chapter 4: When do we need a nudge? (pp. 72-80); Chapter 5: Choice architecture (pp. 81-100). In Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.

• Münscher R, Vetter M & Scheuerle T. (2016). A review and taxonomy of choice architecture techniques. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 29(5), 511-524.

• Liu D, Santhanam R, Webster J. (2017). Toward meaningful engagement: A framework for design and research of gamified information systems. MIS Quarterly, 41(4), 1011-1034.  

Assignment: Research Proposal 3 (First Draft of Full Submission) due
Essay 9 assigned

Week 14 (December 11): SRT; Digital Challenges and Behavioral Interventions

• Fazio LK. (2020). Recognizing the role of psychological science in improving online spaces, Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 21(3), 99-102.

•  Kozyreva A, Lewandowsky S & Hertwig R. (2020). Citizens versus the internet: Confronting digital challenges with cognitive tools. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 21(3), 103-156.

Week 15 (December 18): NO CLASS

Assignment: Research Proposal 4 (Final Rewrite of Full Submission) due