Guía docente de Juicios y Toma de Decisiones (M30/56/2/32)

• Assessing beliefs and updating hypotheses. The bases of decision making.
• Heuristics and biases. The limits of human rationality.
• Critical thinking. How do we reason and how can we improve our thinking skills?
• Social cognition and thinking: moral judgments and dilemmas.
• Paradoxes, dilemmas, and intuitive decisions.
• Perception of risk and risky behavior.
• Emotion, decisions, and risky behavior.

It is recommended for the student to have an English level sufficient to follow lessons and participate in them.

The student is expected to know/understand:

• Neuroanatomical and psychological processes involved in judgment and decision making, as well as tasks and protocols used to study them.
• Relations between judgment, decision making, emotion, and different forms of social cognition.
• Origins and determinants of risky behavior and its relationship with affect.
• Decision-making models, specially stressing its intuitive and rational determinants.
• Brain areas and circuits involved in decision making and risky behavior.

The student will be able to:

• Complete a bibliographic search to deepen into her understanding of a particular aspect of judgment and decision making.
• Distinguish between different theoretical approaches to the study of judgment and decision making.

Block I

1. Fundamentals of judgment and decision making
2. Heuristics and biases: boundaries of human rationality
3. Dual processing models and thinking dispositions

Block II

1. Decision making under risk and under ambiguity
2. Influence of emotion on decision making
3. From decision making to self-regulation

Each unit includes practical activities: simulations, exercises, questionnaires, discussion of audiovisual materials, readings, and writing a mini-review as one of the final assessment activities.

• Cheng, Patricia W., Novick, Laura R., Liljeholm, Mimi & Ford, Christina  (2007). Explaining four psychological asymmetries in causal reasoning: Implications of causal assumptions for coherence. In M. O’Rourke (Ed.), Topics in Contemporary Philosophy (Volume 4, pp. 1 – 32):  Explanation and Causation.  Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Evans, Jonathan B.T. & Stanovich, Keith. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 223-241.
• Gigerenzer, Gerd & Selten, Reinhard (2001). Rethinking rationality. En G. Gigerenzer & R. Selten (Eds.), Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox, págs. 1-12. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Hardman, David (2009). Judgment and decision making: Psychological perspectives. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons..
• Hursh, Steven R., & Roma, Peter G. (2016). Behavioral economics and the analysis of consumption and choice. Managerial and Decision Economics, 37(4-5), 224.
• Kringelbach, Morten L., & Berridge, Kent C. (2010). Pleasures of the brain. Oxford University Press, USA.
• Lerner, Jennifer S., Li, Yie, Valdesolo, Piercarlo, & Kassam, Karim S. (2015). Emotion and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 799-823.
• Newell, Benjamin R., Lagnado, David A., Shanks, David R. (2015). Straight Choices. The Psychology of decision making (2nd Ed.). Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Press.
• O'Doherty, John P., Cockburn, Jeffrey, & Pauli, Wolfgang M. (2017). Learning, Reward, and Decision Making. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 73-100.
• Perales, José C., King, Daniel L., Navas, Juan F., Schimmenti, Adrianno., Sescousse, Gillaume., Starcevic, Vladan, van Holst, Ruth, & Billieux, Joël (2020). Learning to lose control: A process-based account of behavioral addiction. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 108, 771-780.
• Stanovich, Keith E.  & Toplak, Maggie E. (2012). Defining features versus incidental correlates of Type 1 and Type 2 processing. Mind & Society, 11, 3-13.
• Holyoak, Keith J. & Morrison, Robert G.  (Eds.) (2013). The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Weber, Elke U., Blais, Ann-Renée, & Betz, Nancy E. (2002). A domain specific risk attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of behavioral decision making, 15(4), 263-290.

• Evans, Jonathan St. B.T. (2011). Thinking Twice: Two minds in one brain. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Fischhoff, Baruch y Kadvany, John (2011). Risk: a very short introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Kahneman, Daniel (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. NY: Macmillan.
• Loewenstein, George (2007). Exotic preferences: Behavioral economics and human motivation. Oxford University Press.
• Manktelow, Ken (2012). Thinking and reasoning. An introduction to the psychology of reason, judgment and decision making. New York: Psychology Press.
• Rachlin, Howard (2009). The science of self-control. Harvard University Press.
• Stanovich, Keith E. (2009). Distinguishing the reflective, algorithmic and autonomous minds: Is it time for a tri-process theory? En J. St. B. T. Evans & K. Frankish (Eds.), In two minds: Dual process and beyond, págs. 55-88. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
• Stanovich, Keit E. (2009). What intelligence tests miss. The psychology of rational thought. New Haven: Yale University Press.

• http://journal.sjdm.org/
• http://www.sjdm.org/links.html

• Participation, monitoring of in-class activities, and in-class assesment questionnaires (30%)
• Oral presentation (25%) and writing (15%) of an individual essay (mini-review) (Total 40%)
• Final written exam (30%)

This final written exam will consist of two parts, assessing the contents of the two blocks in an approximately balanced way. The percentage of the mark relative to attendance is independent of the fact that an 80% total attendance is mandatory, according to current regulations, and lack of attendance must be justified. The exam will consist of multiple choice and short answer questions.

[Article 18 of the UGR Assessment Policy and Regulations establishes that the ordinary assessment session (convocatoria ordinaria) will preferably be based on the continuous assessment of students, except for those who have been granted the right to a single final assessment (evaluación única final), which is an assessment method that only takes a final exam into account].

The student will be offered the possibility to choose between (1) maintaining the qualification of continuous assessment activities, and do the exam again (with the percentages described above), and (2) do an exam for the 100% of her final qualification, disregarding the activities. In the latter option, the exam could include working materials used during the course (e.g. required readings). In any case, the exam will represent the two blocks of the course in a balanced way. The exam will consist of multiple choice and short answer questions.

[Article 19 of the UGR Assessment Policy and Regulations establishes that students who have not passed a course in the ordinary assessment session (convocatoria ordinaria) will have access to an extraordinary assessment session (convocatoria extraordinaria). All students may take part in this extraordinary assessment session, regardless of whether or not they have followed continuous assessment activities. In this way, students who have not carried out continuous assessment activities will have the opportunity to obtain 100% of their mark by means of an exam and/or assignment].

The totality of the final qualification will depend on a final exam. This exam could include working materials used during the course (e.g. required readings). In any case, the exam will represent the two blocks of the course in a balanced way. The exam will consist of multiple choice and short answer questions.

[Article 8 of the UGR Assessment Policy and Regulations establishes that students who are unable to follow continuous assessment methods due to justifiable reasons shall have recourse to a single final assessment (evaluación única final), which is an assessment method that only takes a final exam into account. In order to opt for a single final assessment (evaluación única final), students must send a request, using the corresponding online procedure, to the coordinator of the master’s programme, in the first two weeks of the course or in the two weeks following their enrolment (if the enrolment has taken place after the classes have already begun). The coordinator will communicate this information to the relevant teaching staff members, citing and verifying the reasons why the student is unable to follow the continuous assessment system].

In-class sessions 

• Theoretical/practical lessons: 
• Professor’s presentations
• Problem solving and case studies
• Simulation exercises
• In-class assessment and monitoring tests
• Students’ presentations: 
• Oral presentations
• Discussion and debate
• Final exam 

Individual work 

• Elaboration of an individual essay
• Bibliographic search on a specific topic
• Critical review of the literature
• Critical reading of recommended references
• Individual preparation of the oral presentation
• Individual preparation of the written essay (mini-review)
• Individual preparation of the final written test
• Tutorials (monitoring, counselling, and feedback

The teaching methodology and assessment will be adapted to students with specific needs (SEN), in accordance with Article 11 of the Regulations on assessment and grading of students at the University of Granada.

This course will follow the recommendations from the UGR Action Plan for Equality regarding the use of nonsexist and inclusive language and visibility of women's and minorities' contributions to the field.