The topics are somewhat flexible, depending on interests of the class. But most will involve recent literature in the psychology of judgments and decisions, behavioral law and economics, and a bit of experimental philosophy. We will discuss the supposed conflict between intuitive and deliberative judgment and the notion that emotions are largely intuitive. Additional papers will include applications of behavioral decision theory to moral judgment, political judgment, and legal judgment such as criminal sentencing and tort penalties. Finally, we will discuss another form of human judgment - forecasts of future events, including economic, political, and personal outcomes. Numerous errors and biases impair our ability to make good predictions, and we will discuss ways to mitigate biases.
Email: Jonathan Baron (baron@psych.upenn.edu) and Barbara Mellers (mellers@wharton.upenn.edu)
Offices: Jonathan Baron C7 Solomon and Barbara Mellers C1 Solomon
Course Time and Location: Tuesdays and Thursdays, 1:30 pm to 3:00 pm. Solomon B35 until March 8, then B50.
Prerequistes: There are no prerequisites, but students should be able to understand the style of psychology journal articles, without regarding expressions such as "t(59)=2.96, p=.02" as spots on the page.
In each class, we will discuss three to four articles, as well as background articles and chapters that you might want to know but may read at a later date. Everyone attending the class should read all of the papers before class. Please submit two brief questions at least an hour before the class. Use the class mailing list for this.
Each reading will be assigned to a student who will be responsible for presenting no more than a 5 minute summary of the paper and at least 5 minutes of personal thoughts. When you are responsible for a paper, make sure to think critically about the stated objective and positioning of the research, the conceptual framework and hypotheses, the methodology, the results, the actual contribution and opportunities for further research in that area.
Finally, each student will be expected to prepare (1) a critique of an assigned paper, (2) a research proposal, (3) a research paper, (4) comments on two student proposals, and (5) 10 minute class presentations, with 5 additional minutes for Q and A.
Assignments
1. Class Participation. Students are required to read all papers scheduled for each class. Class participation means careful preparation for each session and active engagement in class discussions. The quality of the seminar depends on your ability to engage in actively open-minded discussion. Think of discussion as a public good—you often enjoy the contributions of others, and they should derive similar benefits from you. If you don’t contribute, you will suffer, and your classmates will probably suffer too. As you review each reading, you might want to consider ask yourself: Is this case solid? What are the theoretical assumptions? What is the evidence? How good is the evidence? If you are not persuaded, be ready to explain why. Think about what it would take to convince you. If you are persuaded by the main arguments, be prepared to defend them. What are possible boundary conditions? What are some possible applications? Who would care the most about the findings? 25%
2. Critique of an Assigned Reading. You are required to select one of the assigned readings and critique it. You can do this with a paper you are presenting. Please turn in a paper (2 page minimum, 4 page maximum) that discusses what is right and what is wrong with the article. Think about the hypothesis, the logic, the experimental design, or any other aspect of the paper. Also, think about possible solutions for improving the paper. You will be asked to present your critique when we discuss that paper. You’ll have 5 minutes to present your critique (and discussion can last as long as necessary). 10%
3. Proposal, You are required to develop a creative research idea. It doesn’t have to be a finished product. You can use the class to get feedback. Please turn in a paper (2 page minimum, 4 page maximum) that presents your ideas. I also want you to present your ideas in class. We’ll pick a day. All presentations will be approximately half way through the semester. Your presentation should be about 5 to 10 minutes (and discussion can last as long as necessary). 10%.
4. Critiques and Comments of Two Student Proposals. You will have the opportunity to sign up to give comments on the research proposals of two students in the class. Email your comments to each person and cc us when you do.
5. Research Paper due close to the end of the semester – before class presentations of your ideas. The paper could build on your proposal, but this is not necessary. You presentation will be a brief outline of your paper. This paper should be based on an in-depth reading in your selected area and should go beyond papers discussed in class. You should include 1) a statement of the issue and why it merits being researched, 2) an integrative review of the relevant literature indicating how your research will extend this literature, 3) a statement about the concepts, relationships, and assumptions involved (Hypotheses), 4) a statement about concepts that will be operationalized (i.e., measured or manipulated), 5) a description and justification of the research method, sample, and setting, 6) a description of the procedure (i.e., sequence of events), 7) a description of the measurement approach including tests for reliability and validity. Include questionnaires as appendices, 8) a discussion of the proposed (or actual) data analyses to test each hypothesis including your predictions, and 9) a general discussion section detailing contributions and limitations of this research and possible areas for future research. It should be at least 15 pages and not exceed 20 pages. 50%
READINGS. Links will appear in due course. This will be revised, so make sure to re-load. Articles in parentheses are background reading for the presenter, not required.
Comments in docx format: Jan 17, Jan 19, Jan 31 Feb 2, Feb 7, Feb 21, Feb 23
TWO-SYSTEMS: INTUITION VS. DELIBERATION
Week 1: Thursday, Jan 12th
Thinking, Fast and Slow, by D. Kahneman, Chapters 1-3
Week 2: Tuesday, Jan 17th
Evans, J., St.B. T. (2003).
In two minds: dual-process accounts of reasoning.
Trends in Cognitive Science, 7, 454-459
Jon Baron
Frederick, S. (2005).
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 25–42.
Matthew Lazarus
Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M.,
& Cohen, J. D. (2001).
An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral Judgment. Science, 293, 2105–2108.
ditto
(Kahane, G. & Shackel, N. (2010) Methodological Problems in the Neuroscience of Moral Judgment, Mind and Language, 25(5) 561-582.)
McGuire, J., Langdon, R., Coltheart, M., & Mackenzie, C. (2009).
A reanalysis of the personal/impersonal distinction in
moral psychology research. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 45, 577-580.
Evan Carr
Week 2: Thursday, Jan 19th
Greene, J.D. (2009)
Dual-process morality and the personal/impersonal
distinction: A reply to McGuire, Langdon, Coltheart, and Mackenzie.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45 581–584.
Alex Vigderman
Paxton, J. M., Ungar, L., Greene, J. D., (2011)
Reflection and reasoning in moral judgment. Cognitive Science.
Brett Neustadt
Week 3: Tuesday, Jan 24th
(Moore, A. B., Lee, N. Y. L., Clark, B. A. M., & Conway,
A. R. A. (2011).
In defense of the personal/impersonal distinction in
moral psychology research: Cross-cultural validation of the dual
process model of moral judgment. Judgment and Decision Making,
6, 186–195.) (html)
Baron
Nichols, S., & Mallon, R. (2006).
Moral dilemmas and moral rules. Cognition, 100, 530-542.
Mark Kaltenbach
MORAL HEURISTICS AND WHO USES THEM
Week 3: Thursday, Jan 26th
Sunstein, C. R. (2005). Moral heuristics (with commentary).
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 531–573.
here
Benjamin Frank
Greene, J. D. (2007).
The secret joke of Kant’s soul. in W.
Sinnott-Armstrong, Ed., Moral psychology, Vol. 3: The
neuroscience of morality: Emotion, disease, and development, pp.
36–79. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Jeffrey Chen
Week 4: Tuesday, Jan 31st
Bartels, D. M. (2008).
Principled moral sentiment and the flexibility
of moral judgment and decision making. Cognition, 108, 381-417.
Davielle Brown
Bartels, D. M. & Pizarro, D. A. (2011).
The mismeasure of morals:
Antisocial personality traits predict utilitarian responses to moral
dilemmas. Cognition, 108, 381-417.
Jonathan Sinnott
Week 4: Thursday, Feb 2nd
Slovic, P. (2007).
"If I look at the mass I will never act": Psychic numbing and genocide. Judgment and Decision Making, 2, 79-95. (html)
Baron, J. (1997).
Confusion of relative and absolute risk in valuation. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14, 301-309.
Burcu Gurcay
DISTRIBUTIONAL FAIRNESS AND POLITICAL JUDGMENT
Week 5: Tuesday, Feb 7th
Mitchell, G., Tetlock, P. E., Newman, D. G., & Lerner,
J. S. (2003).
Experiments behind the veil: Structural influences on
judgments of social justice. Political Psychology, 24, 519 - 547
Ashleigh Taylor
Ordonez, L., & Mellers, B. (1993).
Tradeoffs in fairness and preference judgments. In In Mellers, B.A. and Baron, J. (Eds.)
Psychological Perspectives on Justice: Theory and Applications. New
York: Cambridge University Press. - follow up to Mitchell et al that
examines tradeoffs between different definitions of equality and
efficiency in hypothetical societies.
Miranda Luna
Mitchell, G., Tetlock, P., Mellers, B., & Ordonez,
L. (1993).
Judgments of Social Justice: Compromises Between Equality
and Efficiency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65,
629-639. - experimental investigation of fair tradeoffs between
equality and efficiency in hypothetical societies.
Benjamin Frank
Week 5: Thursday, Feb 9th
Hacker, J. S. & Pierson, P. (2010).
Winner-Take-All politics:
Public policy, political organization, and the precipitous rise of top
incomes in the United States. Politics & Society, 38, 152-204. - In
depth look at the rise of income inequality in the US over the past
decade. Mechanisms are discussed, with an emphasis on organized
interests of players at the top who and how their behavior is shaped
by the organizational efforts of private interests.
Mark Kaltenbach, Jonthan Sinnott, Jeffrey Chen
Week 6: Tuesday, Feb 14th
Norton, M., & Ariely, D. (2011).
Building a better America - One
wealth quintile at a time. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6,
9 - 12. - Search for the optimal level of wealth inequality in
American society. Liberals and conservatives wanted greater equality
across individual levels of wealth.
Miranda Luna
Levin, Y.
Beyond the welfare state - Untenable social democratic
policies must change. How? Reflections from a conservative
perspective.
Davielle Brown
Cowen, T.
The inequality that matters - A focus on the
reasons behind the success of the top 1%.
Evan Carr
Week 6: Thursday, Feb 16th
TAX
Diamond, P., & Saez, E. (2011).
The case for a progressive tax:
From basic research to policy recommendations. Journal of Economic Perspectives.
Miranda Luna
McCaffery, E. M., & Hines, J. R. Jr. ().
The last best hope for progressivity in tax.
Week 7: Tuesday, Feb 21st
McCaffery, E. J., & Baron J. (2005).
The political psychology
of redistribution. UCLA Law Review, 52, 1745–1792.
McCaffery & Baron,
Isolation effects and the neglect of indirect effects of fiscal
policies
Week 7: Thursday, Feb 23rd
Hardisty, D. J., Johnson, E. J., & Weber, E. U. (2010).
A dirty
word or a dirty world? Attribute framing, political affiliation, and
query theory. Psychological Science, 21(1), 86-92. - When carbon
taxes are reframed as offsets, Republicans are more likely to support
them.
Sussman, Abby and Olivola, Christopher Y (2011).
Axe the Tax:
Taxes are Disliked More than Equivalent Costs. Journal of Marketing
Research
CRIME AND PUNISHMENT
Week 8: Tuesday, Feb 28th
Shavell: Economic Analysis of Public Law Enforcement and Criminal Law,
chs. 20, 21 (sections 1-3), and
chs. 23, 24.
Paul H. Robinson and John Darley (2004).
Does criminal law deter?
Robinson et al.
The disutility of injustice
Week 8: Thursday, Mar 1st
Raymond Fisman and Edward Miguel. (2007). Corruption, norms, and legal
enforcement: Evidence from diplomatic parking tickets. Journal
of Political Economy, 115, 1020-1048.
Croson, R., & Konow, J. (2009).
Social preferences and moral biases.
Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 69, 201-212.
SPRING BREAK: Mar 3rd – 11th
Week 9: Tuesday, Mar 13th, Research Proposals Due
We also begin brief presentations of proposals 3-4 per week.
Diamond, J.
Vengeance is ours. New Yorker.
Baron, J., & Ritov, I. (2009). The role of probability
of detection in judgments of punishment. Journal of Legal Analysis, 2,
553-590.
Week 9: Thursday, Mar 15th
Greene, J. D. , Cohen J. D. (2004)
For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, (Special
Issue on Law and the Brain), 359, 1775-17785.
Sunstein, C. R. (2005)
Is capital punishment morally required?
Week 10: Tuesday, Mar 20
Donahue, J. J. III, & Wolfers, J. (2006).
Uses and abuses of empirical evidence in the death penalty debate
GLOBAL WARMING
Weber, E. (2006).
Experienced- Based and Description-Based Perceptions of
Long Term Risk: Why Global Warming Does Not Scare us (Yet). Climatic Change.
Week 10: Thursday, Mar 22th
Sunstein, C. (2006).
Precautions against what? The availability heuristic,
Intuitive Cost-Benefit Analysis, and Climate Change. Climatic Change.
Kahan, D., et al. (2010).
The tragedy of the risk-perception commons.
MAKING INDIVIDUAL FORECASTS
Week 11: Tuesday, Mar 27th
Evans, J. St. B. T. (1982).
Psychological pitfalls in forecasting. Futures.
Kahneman, D., & Lovallo, D. (2003).
Delusions of success.
Harvard Business Review
Week 11: Thursday, Mar 29th
Lawrence, M, Goodwin, P. O’Connor, M., Onkal, D. (2006).
Judgmental
forecasting: A review of progress over the last 25years, International
Journal of Forecasting 22 ,493 - 518
MAKING GROUP FORECASTS
Week 12: Tuesday, Apr 3th
Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds. Doubleday, New York, NY. Pp 3-
142:
ch 1-4,
ch 5-6.
Week 12: Thursday, Apr 5rd
Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds. Doubleday, New York, NY. Pp
145-272:
ch 5-6,
ch 10-12.
Week 13: Tuesday, Apr 10th (Research papers due?)
Wolfers, J. & Zitzewitz, E. (2004).
Prediction markets
Berg, J., Forsythe, R., Nelson, F., & Rietz, T. (2003).
Results from a Dozen Years of Election Futures Markets Research.
Week 13: Thursday, Apr 12th Student Presentations
Week 14: Tuesday, Apr 17th Student Presentations
Week 14: Thursday, Apr 19th Student Presentations
Week 15: Tuesday, Apr 24th Student Presentations
Ashleigh Taylor, with help from JB
Janice Jung
Burcu Gurcay
Janice Jung
Ben Frank
Miranda Luna
Brett Neustadt
Janice Jung
Ashleigh Taylor
Benjamin Frank
Mark Kaltenbach
Burcu Gurcay
Brett Neustadt
Jeffrey Chen
Burcu Gurcay
Davielle Brown
Burcu Gurcay
Jonathan Sinnott
Mark Kaltenbach
Brett Neustadt
Jonathan Sinnott
Janice Jung and Matthew Lazarus
Miranda Luna and Davielle Brown
Jeffrey Chen
Evan Carr