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 mandatory for the student to have an English level sufficient to follow the lectures and participate in them.

If AI tools are used for the elaboration of any assignments during the course, the student must adopt an ethical and responsible approach. The recommendations outlined in the document Recommendations for the Use of Artificial Intelligence at UGR, published at this location, should be followed:

•  https://ceprud.ugr.es/formacion-tic/inteligencia-artificial/recomendaciones-ia#contenido0

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 Judgments and Decision-Making

2. Biases, Heuristics, and Bounded Rationality

3. Social Cognition, Judgments, and Decision-Making

Block II

1. Decision-Making Models

2. Emotion and Decision-Making

3. Risk Behavior, Self-Regulation, and Addictive Disorders

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.

• Dennison, Jeffrey B., Sazhin, Daniel, & Smith, David V. (2022). Decision neuroscience and neuroeconomics: Recent progress and ongoing challenges. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 13(3), e1589.
• Evans, Jonathan B.T. & Stanovich, Keith E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 223-241.
• Fischhoff, Baruch., & Broomell, Stephen B. (2020). Judgment and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 71, 331-355.
• Fox, Craig R., & Poldrack, Russell A. (2013). Prospect theory and the brain. In Glimcher, P. W., & Fehr, E. (Eds.). Neuroeconomics: Decision Making and the Brain. (pp. 533-568). Academic Press.
• Gigerenzer, Gerd. (2020). What is bounded rationality? In Viale, Riccardo (ed.). Routledge handbook of bounded rationality. (pp. 55-69). Routledge.
• Ruggeri, Kai, Alí, Sonia, Berge, Mari L., Bertoldo, Giulia, Bjørndal, Ludvig. D., Cortijos-Bernabeu, Ana, ... & Folke, Tomas (2020). Replicating patterns of prospect theory for decision under risk. Nature human behaviour, 4(6), 622-633.
• Lerner, Jennifer S., Li, Yie, Valdesolo, Piercarlo, & Kassam, Karim S. (2015). Emotion and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 799-823.
• Milli, Smitha, Lieder, Falk, & Griffiths, Thomas L. (2021). A rational reinterpretation of dual-process theories. Cognition, 217, 104881.
• Newell, Benjamin R., Lagnado, David A., Shanks, David R. (2023). Straight Choices. The Psychology of decision making (3rd Ed.). Psychology Press.
• O'Doherty, John P., Cockburn, Jeffrey, & Pauli, Wolfgang M. (2017). Learning, Reward, and Decision Making. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 73-100.
• Osman, Magda (2004). An evaluation of dual-process theories of reasoning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(6), 988-1010.

• Berridge, Kent C., & Robinson, Terry E. (2016). Liking, wanting, and the incentive-sensitization theory of addiction. American Psychologist, 71(8), 670-679.
• De Neys, Win (2021). On dual-and single-process models of thinking. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(6), 1412-1427.
• Fischhoff, Baruch y Kadvany, John (2011). Risk: a very short introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Holyoak, Keith, & Cheng, Patricia W. (2011). Causal learning and inference as a rational process: The new synthesis. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 135-163.
• Hursh, Steven R., & Roma, Peter G. (2016). Behavioral economics and the analysis of consumption and choice. Managerial and Decision Economics, 37(4-5), 224.
• Imaizumi, Yuri, Tymula, Agnieszka, Tsubo, Yasuhiro, Matsumoto, Masayuki, & Yamada, Hiroshi (2022). A neuronal prospect theory model in the brain reward circuitry. Nature Communications, 13(1), 5855.
• Keren, Gideon, & Wu, George (Eds.). (2015). The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making. Wiley-Blackwell.
• Loewenstein, George (2007). Exotic preferences: Behavioral economics and human motivation. Oxford University Press.
• 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

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

First Evaluation Component (Common): Attendance and participation (10%), assessment mini-quizzes (25%), and completion of follow-up activities (15%).

Second Evaluation Component (Choose One):

1. Oral presentation (25%) of a written mini-review (minimum of 5 articles, 25%) on a specific topic related to the course contents, or...
2. Presentation of 2–3 articles related to the course contents (25%) + final exam (25%).

The exam can consist of short-answer questions and/or multiple-choice objective questions covering content from both blocks. The participation score is considered without prejudice to the requirement of class attendance for evaluation, and absences must be duly justified. In any case, attending at least 80% of the classes is mandatory.

Some examples of mini-review topics are listed below. The professor will present the topics at the beginning of the course, and students will have the opportunity to narrow them down to a more specific focus, depending on the number of relevant papers available.

1. Cognitive Biases in the Evaluation of (dis)information

2. Social Cognition, Neurodiversity, and Empathy

3. Behavioral Economics and Decision-Making in Vulnerability Contexts

4. Judgment, Well-Being, and Decision-Making in Health

5. Human Judgment and Technology

6. Decision-Making, Consumer Behavior, and Persuasion

(Article 18 of the Regulations on Evaluation and Grading of the University of Granada states that the regular exam session will preferably be based on continuous assessment of students, except for those who have been granted the right to a final single evaluation.)

The extraordinary call will be held within the timeframe established by the International School for Postgraduate Studies.

Students may choose to retain the grades from the first evaluation component (50%) and take an exam (50%) with the same characteristics as the regular exam, or take a short-answer exam worth 10 points (covering theoretical content, which may include questions on any of the materials studied in class throughout the course). In this case, the exam will be divided approximately equally between content from both blocks.

(Article 19 of the University of Granada's Evaluation Regulations states that students who have not passed the subject in the regular exam session will have access to an extraordinary exam session, regardless of whether they have followed a continuous evaluation process. This allows students who have not participated in continuous assessment to obtain 100% of their final grade through a single test and/or assignment.)

Article 8 of the Regulations for Evaluation and Grading of Students of the University of Granada establishes that those who cannot comply with the continuous evaluation method for justified reasons may be eligible for the single final evaluation.

To take advantage of the single final evaluation, the student, in the first two weeks of the course or in the two weeks following his or her enrollment if this has occurred after the start of classes or due to unforeseen circumstances. The student will request it, through the electronic procedure, to the Master's Coordination, who will transfer it to the corresponding faculty, alleging and accrediting the reasons for not being able to follow the continuous evaluation system.

The evaluation in this case will consist of:

• An exam that may include open questions, multiple-choice questions, and exercises on the theoretical contents, which may include materials worked on in class throughout the course. In this case, the exam will be composed in approximately equal parts by contents of the two blocks. Students will contact the faculty in advance to receive specific information about the materials to be examined (total 55%).
• Oral presentation (25%) of a written mini-review (20%) on a specific topic (total 45%). Students will contact the faculty in advance to receive specific information about the conduct of the mini-review, the approval of the mini-review topic and the methodology to be followed.

[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].

Teaching methodologies:

• MD01: Professor's lessons
• MD02: Debates and discussion sessions
• MD03: Problem solving and practical cases
• MD05: Seminars
• MD06: Simulations
• MD09: Individual essays
• MD11: Students’ oral presentations (monitoring, counseling, and feedback)

Distribution of students' workload:

In-person group classes (36h):

• Theoretical-practical classes: 23h

• Public presentation of assignments (mini-reviews or articles): 10h

• Assessment (exam): 3h

In-person individual work (17h total / approx. 2h per student):

• Tutorials: 15h

• Assessment (individual feedback on mini-reviews or articles): 2h

Non-presential individual work:

• Supervised assignments: 14h

• Other autonomous or supervised student work: 40h

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.