SOCIETY FOR JUDGMENT AND DECISION MAKING CONFERENCE 2023
This year’s Annual Meeting of the Society for Judgment and Decision Making will be held in San Francisco, CA, November 17-20, 2023 (Friday-Monday). After a few years apart, we are once again holding our conference alongside the Psychonomic Society’s annual meeting. We are excited to have the chance to be together in person again, to share research and connect with each other, and do so with Psychonomics. We currently anticipate that all presentations will be held on-site, and all presenters should plan to be present in person.
The conference submission portal is now OPEN! The submission deadline is June 22 (11:59 pm Pacific Daylight Time). The submission portal is here: https://sjdm.org/conf_rev/submit1.php
As you navigate the academic world, you will inevitably have an exchange in which people ask you what field you are in. You will reply that you do JDM and people will ask you what JDM means. You will say “judgment and decision making” and then they will ask you what that means. At this point you may realize that you are not really sure.
To help you construct an answer, here are some thoughts about what JDM is and what it isn’t.
MY FAVORITE CONCISE DEFINITION
“The study of intuitive statistics.”
A LONGER DEFINITION
“The study of human decision making behavior, formal decision models, and the differences between the two.”
STATED DEFINITIONS
According to the SJDM website (full disclosure, I am a long-time co-webmaster there and may have had a hand in this definition statement) the Society’s focus is
“is an interdisciplinary academic organization dedicated to the study of normative, descriptive, and prescriptive theories of judgments and decisions. Its members include psychologists, economists, organizational researchers, decision analysts, and other decision researchers.”
According to the Center for Decision Sciences at Columbia University (full disclosure, I used to work there and may have had a hand in this definition statement):
“Theory and research in the decision sciences has followed two paths: The first is normative or prescriptive, focused on specifying criteria for evaluating decisions and providing algorithms for achieving optimal outcomes; the second is descriptive, focusing on how people actually make decisions.”
“The study of judgment and decision making (JDM) is traditionally concerned with the comparison of judgments to standards, standards that allow evaluation of the judgments as better or worse. I use the term ‘judgments’ to include decisions, which are judgments about what to do. The major standards come from probability theory, utility theory, and statistics. These are mathematical theories or ‘models’ that allow us to evaluate a judgment.”
In plain language, all three definitions emphasize that JDM research describes how people decide and compares decision making to objective standards. These standards do not have to be what is supposedly correct, as we will discuss later.
DOES THE DIFFRENCE BETWEEN JUDGMENT AND DECISION MAKING REALLY MATTER?
Judgments (like estimating the distance of an object or the population of a country), and decisions (like choosing medical treatment A vs B given available information and risks) are different, but they’re so related that I find it convenient to roll everything up into ‘decision making’. Above, Jon Baron rolls everything up into ‘judgment’. Oh well. In any case JDM or “judgment and decision making” is now a fixed phrase and there’s not much talk about the distinction between judgments and decisions.
In mainstream use, “behavioral economics” is a synonym for JDM. But if we dig into it, “behavioral economics” can refer to three areas:
Experimental economics, in which economists run psychology experiments (no deception, monetary stakes, etc.)
Theoretical economics in which economists prove theorems about ‘psychological’ agents
Judgment and decision making, the kind you see at the SJDM conference and in the journal Judgment and Decision Making.
IS JDM THE STUDY OF COGNITIVE BIASES?
No. A bias is the difference between a behavior and a model of what that behavior should be or what is supposedly correct. JDM research doesn’t need to compare behavior to what it should be. Furthermore, comparing behavior to “correct” norms can be short-sighted as norms are subjective and constantly evolving. For instance, it used to be considered normatively incorrect to violate expected value. But demonstrations like the St. Petersburg Paradox caused people to appreciate that expected value is not a reasonable norm. Instead of insisting that everyone was biased, thinkers like Daniel Bernoulli changed the norm. Now we don’t think of it as a bias to go against expected value and have turned our attention to describing the risky choices people take with models like Prospect Theory and many others.
Lastly, studies showing that organisms exhibit near optimal decision behavior (i.e., no deviation from a norm on average) are clearly JDM studies, even though they don’t identify biases.
WHAT FIELDS DO JDM RESEARCHERS COME FROM?
JDM lies at the intersection of mathematical psychology and economics. From its origins, it has been centrally concerned with the comparison of human decisions with normative models of decision making, mostly those from economics. One might object that JDM researchers often come from management, marketing, and accounting, too. True, but those are really subfields of economics that have branched out on their own. (Source: me, a former marketing professor).
Here is a graph that shows the JDM society membership by field:
No, at its core, JDM is mathematical / cognitive psychology and economics. The early notable JDMers were mathematical and cognitive psychologists who were finding fault in the prevailing economic model. Amos Tversky was a mathematical psychologist and Daniel Kahneman was a perception researcher when the field took off. Clyde Coombs, Ward Edwards, Dave Krantz and Robyn Dawes all had mathematical psychology affiliations at Michigan. Lola Lopes credits cognitive psychology for shaping her thinking. Gerd Gigerenzer wrote twotheses on mathematical psychology. The list of SJDM past presidents comprises mostly cognitive psychologists. Core JDM research is about formal models (or standards as Baron calls them) including risk, utility, uncertainty, probability, and logic, which are core topics in economics and mathematical psychology. Social psychology, which has been defined as “the study of the manner in which the personality, attitudes, motivations, and behavior of the individual influence and are influenced by social groups”, is clearly something else.
Words that are much more common in decision-making than in social psychology (Rate per 10,000 words)Words that are much more common in social psychology than in decision-making (Rate per 10,000 words)
The differences are apparent when you compare the kinds of topics studied (as judged by word frequencies in a JDM conference program and a social psychology conference called Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP)).
This isn’t to say there isn’t an intersection between JDM and social psychology. Many social psychologists are interested in Judgment and Decision Making. There’s an active JDM pre-conference at a massive social psychology conference called SPSP. Group decision making, for example is a growing topic within JDM that surely fits in as social psychology topic. But on the main, the elevator pitch for JDM is cognitive psychology meets economics.
Filed in Jobs Subscribe to Decision Science News by Email (one email per week, easy unsubscribe)
APPLICATION DEADLINE OCTOBER 1, 2022
The Department of Psychology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, invites applications for a full-time, tenure-track Assistant Professor in human decision science, broadly construed. Preference will be given to candidates with innovative research programs combining theoretical and empirical approaches to address cognitive processes in decision-making. We welcome specialization in behavioral, economic, computational, and neuroscientific methods, and applications to decisions in domains with broad potential impact.
Michigan’s top-ranked Department of Psychology has a longstanding foundation in decision-making research. Successful candidates will join a rich, interdisciplinary research campus ranked No. 1 in research volume among U.S. public universities for the past decade. Multidisciplinary research initiatives on campus bring together collaborations across 19 schools and colleges, including business, engineering, design, public health, information, education, public policy, law, and medicine.
Candidates must have a Ph.D. in psychology or related discipline before the expected start date of August 29, 2023. Commitment to undergraduate and graduate teaching in psychology is required, along with active undergraduate and graduate student mentorship.
Please submit a cover letter, curriculum vitae, statement of current and future research plans, and up to three publications. In addition, please provide a statement of teaching philosophy and experience, with evidence of quality when available. Please include with your application a separate diversity statement that describes how your research, teaching, and/or service have or will contribute to diversity, equity, and inclusion (https://diversity.umich.edu/) on the U-M campus.
To apply, submit materials by October 1, 2022 at the following site: http://apply.interfolio.com/110044 The application site allows candidates to request letters of recommendation directly from referees (also due by October 1, 2022). For inquiries about this position, please contact the search committee chair, Prof. Colleen Seifert (seifert at umich.edu).
The University of Michigan is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer. Qualified women and minority candidates are encouraged to apply. The University is also supportive of the needs of dual-career couples.
Filed in Programs Subscribe to Decision Science News by Email (one email per week, easy unsubscribe)
CALL FOR APPLICATIONS
We are delighted to announce that the 20th Summer Institute on Bounded Rationality will take place June 14 – 22, 2022, at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin, Germany.
The Summer Institute brings together talented young researchers and renowned scientists from around the globe and aims to spark a dialogue about decision making under the real-world constraints of limited time, information, and computational power.
The Summer Institute offers a forum for young scholars from various disciplines to share their approaches, discuss their research, and inspire each other. The program will cover the fundamentals, methodology, and recent findings on bounded rationality.
This year’s Summer Institute will approach the topic search and learning through the lens of bounded rationality and interdisciplinary research on human decision making.
It is our pleasure to announce that Armin Falk, Professor of Economics at the University of Bonn and Chief Executive Officer of the Institute on Behavior & Inequality, will be giving the “Joachim Herz” Keynote Lecture.
This year’s “Hero of Science” Keynote Lecture will be given by Naomi Oreskes, Henry Charles Lea Professor of the History of Science at Harvard University.
On behalf of the directors of the Summer Institute, Gerd Gigerenzer and Ralph Hertwig, we invite young scholars of decision making from all fields to apply. Participation is free, accommodation is provided, and travel expenses will be partly reimbursed.
Applications are open until March 15, 2022.
For questions: SI2022@mpib-berlin.mpg.de
Apply here: https://bit.ly/34CmMZO
Website: https://bit.ly/3qXfJnR
Please feel free to forward this to anyone who might be interested.
Decision Science News is a website about Behavioral Economics, Data Science, Statistics, Marketing, Management, Psychology, Computer Science, Medicine, Policy, & Law
Subscribe to Decision Science News by Email (one email per week, easy unsubscribe)
