Judgment And Decision Making Psychological Perspectives Books Pdf File
Judgment And Decision Making Psychological Perspectives Books Pdf File >>>>> https://urlgoal.com/2sYndL
Because the field of judgment and decision making is largely a formal one (similar to mathematics), its principles and findings are applicable to a wide range of disciplines, including psychology, medicine, social policy, law, management science, economics, and accounting. The purpose of this series is to convey the general principles and findings of research in judgment and decision making to the many academic and professional fields to which it applies. The books are aimed at researchers and their upper-level students. Most of the books are multi-authored volumes written by authorities in the field and sponsored by the Publications Committee of the Society for Judgment and Decision Making.
I cannot support or sponsor visiting scholars.I am no longer teaching classes, but here are some old ones:Seminar in moral judgment, law, and public policy (spring 2013)Seminar in behavioral law and economics (spring 2011)Judgments and decisions (graduate, half of fall term 2012)Judgments and decisions (undergraduate, fall 2010)BooksBaron J. (1985). Rationality and intelligence. Cambridge University Press.Baron, J. (1988, 1994, 2000, 2008, 5th edition in press). Thinking and Deciding. Cambridge University Press(errata).Baron, J. & Brown, R. V. (Eds.) (1991).Teaching decision making to adolescents.Erlbaum (now Routledge).Baron, J. (1993).Morality and rational choice. Kluwer (now Springer).Mellers, B. A. & Baron, J. (Eds.) (1993).Psychological perspectives on justice. Cambridge University Press.Baron, J. (1998). Judgmentmisguided: Intuition and error in public decision making. Oxford University Press.[full text, with permission](References.)Weber, E. U., Baron, J., & Loomes, G., (Eds.) (2000).Conflict and tradeoffs in decision making: Essays in honor ofJane Beattie. Cambridge University Press.(Introduction.)Bazerman, M. H., Baron, J., & Shonk, K. (2001). You can't enlarge the pie: The psychology of ineffectivegovernment. Basic Books.Baron, J. (2006).Against bioethics. MIT Press. Li, Y., & Baron, J. (2011). Behavioral research data analysis with R. Springer.e-bookBrown, R. V. (Edited by J. Baron and K. Brown) (2020).The art and science of making up your mind. Routledge.Some drafts and talksActively open-minded thinkingand the political effects of its absence Draft chapterfor Divided: Open-Mindedness and Dogmatism in a Polarized World(Victor Ottati and Chadly Stern, editors; Oxford University Press)Is moral judgment rational? Draftchapter (accepted with revision) for Cambridge Handbook of MoralPsychology, 2nd edition, edited by Philip Robbins and BertramMalle.)Two components of individual differences in actively open-minded thinking standards: Myside bias and uncertainty aversion.Generality of individual differences in actively open-minded thinking SJDM 2021 (with Wesley Streicher) Actively open-minded thinking asmetacognition for self and others: A review. (Psychonomic, 11/06/2021)CogntiveLiberalism and actively open-minded thinking. (Hebrew University, 10/28/2020)CogntiveLiberalism and actively open-minded thinking. (MindCORE, Penn, 7/1/2020)(video)People who endorse AOT are sensitive to cues indicating AOT of sources, SJDM 2019 (with Derrick High II)Howcitizens think, and don't think: parochialism, moralism, myside bias, etc.(Ohio State University, 1/17/2020)Virtuesand vices of citizenship (Moral Psychology Research Group, 2018) Measurement ofactively open-minded thinking (AOT) (brown bag talk 8/27/2017)(old version)CurrentAOT scale.Uncertainty and probability within utilitarian theory, submitted for a special issueof Diametroson Ethics and Uncertainty (and accepted after revision).Autilitarian perspective on how citizens think about their politicaldecisions, American Political Science Association pre-conferenceon political psychology, Aug. 31, 2016.What do people want from privacy law? For a meeting on privacy, University of Pennsylvania Law School, 2015. Philosophical impediments to citizens' use of science, Annenberg conferenceon science communication, Oct. 17, 2014(paper)Actively open-minded thinking and reflection-impulsivity as alternatives to the sequential two-system theory of the cognitive reflection test and moral judgment (SJDM, 2013).Group actively open-minded thinking (Scott, Rohrbaugh, Hou, Metz, Baron, Tetlock) (BDRM 2014).Belief overkill (Penn, 5/23/11)Citizens' concepts of their duty (Yale, 4/28/11)The "culture of honor" in citizens' concepts of their duty (pdf)Wharton Issue Brief about this studyThe nature and origin of some non-utilitarian moral rules.(Presented at Yale, 2/11/09.)Moral heuristics and biases, Presidential Address, Society for Judgmentand Decision Making (SJDM), 11/19/07.Citizens as moralists. (Presented at Stanford GSB, 5/30/07.)Cognitive biases that support parochialism. (Presented at SJDM, 11/06.)Parochialism and approval voting, slides for SABE/IAREP talk and link to paper.Thinking about tax, slides for 9/27/05 Penn Colloquium, with link to papers.Thinking about global warming, slides for 11/12/04 Princeton meeting.Papers with Min Gong arehere.My papers listed atSocial Science Research Network (SSRN).Articles made public only on the Web: Prospects for utilitarian decision analysis.(slides)Baron, J., & Li, Y. (2000, revised 2011).Notes on the use of R for psychology experiments and questionnaires.(pdf)Prasad, P., & Baron, J. (1995). Measurementof gender-role attitudes, beliefs, and principles.(Contains survey.)Gürçay-Morris, B., & Baron, J. (2019). The use of alternative reasons in probabilistic judgment. Baron, J., Gurmankin, A. D., & Kunreuther, H. (2003). Acomparative approach to protective behavior. (pdf)Baron, J., et al. (2002). Attitudestoward the ethics of paying subjects for risky experiments.Baron, J. (2002). Valuetrade-offs and the nature of utility: bias, inconsistency,protected values, and other problems. Prepared for conferenceon Behavioral Economics and Neoclassical Economics, AmericanInstitute for Economic Research, Great Barrington, MA, July, 2002.Lim, C. S., & Baron, J. (1997). Protected valuesin Malaysia, Singapore, and the United States. Baron, J., Neiderhiser, B., & Gandy, O. H. (1997).Perceptions and attributions of racedifferences in health risks.Eisenberg, A. E., Baron, J., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1996).Individual differences in risk aversionand anxiety.Chaitas, S., Solodkin, A, & Baron, J. (1995).Students' attitudes toward social dilemmas inArgentina, Mexico, and the United StatesBaron, J., Schulkin, J., & Kunreuther, H. (1990). Perceived uncertainty and the response toglobal warming.Baron, J., Laskey, K., and Brown, R. V. (1989).Going through the goop: An introduction to decisionmaking. (Written for high-school students.)My obit for Rex V. Brown (with link to another one)Articles in Regulatory Review (blog):* How geographic boundaries determine the social cost of carbon (2017)* The discount rate for the social cost of carbon (2017)* Justifying health insurance (2017)Articles published or in press
The central goal of this volume is to bring the learning perspective into the discussion of intuition in judgment and decision making. The book gathers recent work on intuitive decision making that goes beyond the current dominant heuristic processing perspective. However, that does not mean that the book will strictly oppose this perspective. The unique perspective of this book will help to tie together these different conceptualizations of intuition and develop an integrative approach to the psychological understanding of intuition in judgment and decision making. Accordingly, some of the chapters reflect prior research from the heuristic processing perspective in the new light of the learning perspective.
This book provides a representative overview of what we currently know about intuition in judgment and decision making. The authors provide latest theoretical developments, integrative frameworks and state-of-the-art reviews of research in the laboratory and in the field. Moreover, some chapters deal with applied topics. Intuition in Judgment and Decision Making aims not only at the interest of students and researchers of psychology, but also at scholars from neighboring social and behavioral sciences such as economy, sociology, political sciences, and neurosciences.
If we want to understand and shape the system, Kahneman claims that we need to understand the humans who act inside of it first. Long-time companion Amos Tversky and Kahneman dedicated their academic lives to the psychological phenomena around judgement and decision-making, establishing a new way of thinking about human errors based on heuristics and biases.
Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment is a nonfiction book by professors Daniel Kahneman, Olivier Sibony and Cass Sunstein. It was first published on May 18, 2021. The book concerns 'noise' in human judgment and decision-making. The authors define noise in human judgment as "undesirable variability in judgments of the same problem" and focus on the statistical properties and psychological perspectives of the issue.
In the book, Kahneman, Sibony and Sunstein provide many examples of noise in human judgment. Beyond the below areas where noise exists, the book also looks at for example performance evaluation and business strategy. However, a recurring statement in the book is that "wherever there is judgment, there is noise, and more of it than you think", so they argue that there is noise in most areas of human decision making.
In the book, the authors present various decision hygiene techniques through different case study chapters. These techniques include both relatively small changes to the choice architecture (the physical and psychological environment in which the judgment is made) such as nudges (a concept made famous by Sunstein together with Richard Thaler) and larger changes. The latter include debiasing, use of algorithms/rules, use of guidelines, use of relative scales, use of base rates, aggregation of judgments, structured and carefully sequenced decision-making processes, or even simply finding better judges. In other words, one path of decision hygiene is to aid judges in various ways, such as which factors they look at, how they weight the different factors and how they use the scale in question. The other decision hygiene path is to wholly replace human judgment by algorithms, hard rules or better judges. Examples given of the rule-based approach are algorithms for making fairer and more accurate bail decisions concerning flight risk and the rules and procedures doctors use to quantify tendon degeneration. 2b1af7f3a8