The Hebrew University Logo
Syllabus STRATEGOC JUDGMENT AND DECISION MAKING - 71959
òáøéú
Print
 
close window close
PDF version
Last update 25-09-2016
HU Credits: 3

Degree/Cycle: 2nd degree (Master)

Responsible Department: environmental economics & management

Semester: 1st Semester

Teaching Languages: Hebrew

Campus: Rehovot

Course/Module Coordinator: Eyal Ert

Coordinator Email: Eyal.Ert@mail.huji.ac.il

Coordinator Office Hours: sunday 15:00-16:00

Teaching Staff:
Dr. Eyal Ert

Course/Module description:
The normative model, bounded rationality and alternative theories, cognitive aspects of judgment and decision processes, heuristics and biases, the experimental approach, decisions under risk and uncertainty, learning and decisions from experience, social and environmental influence, implications for policy and choice architecture.

Course/Module aims:
introduction to the field of decision research and providing the basic tools necessary for conducting research in this area

Learning outcomes - On successful completion of this module, students should be able to:
-apply behavioral models on new decision problems (predict behavior)
- recognize the differences between the normative approach to the experimental approach
-design experiments
-criticize experiments

Attendance requirements(%):
100

Teaching arrangement and method of instruction: Lectures

Course/Module Content:
1.introduction and the Prospect theory
2.restricted rationality and Prospect theory
3.Relative judgment: Review and applications
4.Role of context and "reversal Preferences"
5.risk vr. Uncertainty
6.time dimension
7.Learning and adaptation
8.Decisions from description vr. decision from experience
9.Personality factors vr. social influence
10.introduction to the games theory
11. social dilemmas
12.Policy and designed decisions
13.summary

Required Reading:
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An analysis of decisions
under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.
Hertwig R.,& Erev I. (2009). The description–experience gap in risky choice. Trends
in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 517–523
*Salganik, M. J., Dodds, P. S. & Watts, D. J. (2006) Experimental study of inequality
and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market. Science 311:854–56.

Ert, E., Erev, I., & Roth A. E. (2011). A Choice prediction competition for simple
extensive form games: An introduction. Game

Additional Reading Material:
Luce, R. D., & Raiffa, H. (1957). Games and decisions. New York: Wiley &
Sons. (Chapters 1 & 2):
Kahaneman, D. (2003), Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral
Economics. American Economic Review, 93(5), 1449-1475.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative
representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and uncertainty, 5(4), 297-323.

Camerer, C. F. (2004). Prospect theory in the wild: Evidence from the field. Colin F.
Camerer, George Loewenstein, and Matthew. Rabin, eds., Advances in Behavioral
Economics, 148-161.

Ert, E., & Erev, I. (2013). On the descriptive value of loss aversion: Six clarifications.
Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 214-235.

Thaler, R. (1999). Mental Accounting Matters. Journal of Behavioral Decision
Making , 12(3), 183-206.

Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of
choice, Science, 211(4481), 453-458.

Tversky, A., Slovic, P. & Kahneman, D. (1990), The causes of preference reversal,
American Economic Review 80(1), pp. 204–217.

Tversky A, Fox CR. (1995) Weighing risk and uncertainty. Psychological Review.
102, 269–283.

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

Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review
of Psychology, 62, 451–482.
Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G. & O'Donoghue, T. (2002). Time Discounting and
Time Preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature. 40(2), 2002.
Erev, I. & Barron, G. (2005) On adaptation, maximization, and reinforcement
learning among cognitive
strategies, Psychological Review, 112, 912–931

Biele, G., Erev, I., & Ert, E. (2009). Learning, risk attitude and hot stoves in restless
bandit problems. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53(3), 155-167.
Erev, I., Ert, E., Roth, A., Haruvy, E., Herzog, S., Hau, R., Hertwig, R., Stewart, T.,
West, R., and Liebre, C. (2010). A choice prediction competition for choices from
experience and from description. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 23: 15-47
Erev, I., Ert, E., Roth, A., Haruvy, E., Herzog, S., Hau, R., Hertwig, R., Stewart, T.,
West, R., and Liebre, C. (2010). A choice prediction competition for choices from
experience and from description. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 23: 15-47
Yechiam, E., and Ert E. (2011). Risk attitude in decision making: Search for trait like
constructs. Topics in Cognitive Science. 3: 166-186.
Camerer, C. F. (1997). Progress in Behavioral Game Theory, Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 11(4), 167-188
Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the common. Science, 162, 1243-1248.

Brewer, M. B., Kramer, R. M. (1986). Choice behavior in social dilemmas: Effects of
social identity, group size, and decision framing. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 50(3), 543-549.
Thaler, R. & Sunstein. C. (2003). Libertarian Paternalism. American Economic
Review, 93, 175 – 179.

Ariely D. Norton M. I. (2008). How actions create—not just reveal—preferences.
Trends in Cognitive Science, 12: 13–16.

Hoffman, A. and M. H. Bazerman. Changing Practices on Sustainability:
Understanding and Overcoming the Organizational and Psychological Barriers to
Action. In Organizations and the Sustainability Mosaic, edited by S. Sharma, M.
Starik and B. Husted. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2007

Course/Module evaluation:
End of year written/oral examination 100 %
Presentation 0 %
Participation in Tutorials 0 %
Project work 0 %
Assignments 0 %
Reports 0 %
Research project 0 %
Quizzes 0 %
Other 0 %

Additional information:
None
 
Students needing academic accommodations based on a disability should contact the Center for Diagnosis and Support of Students with Learning Disabilities, or the Office for Students with Disabilities, as early as possible, to discuss and coordinate accommodations, based on relevant documentation.
For further information, please visit the site of the Dean of Students Office.
Print