JUDGMENT AND DECISION MAKING
Many important policy, management and consumer decisions are based on an underlying quantitative judgment, or a prediction about the future:
How many stakeholders will support this policy?
What is the risk of this virus launching a pandemic?
How many inches of rain will fall in California next winter?
Especially in cases of important decisions, people often turn to others to ask for advice or to make the decision together. Julia's research addresses the biases that prevent individuals from maximizing the benefits of collaboration, and lead to wasted time, effort, and systematic errors in judgment.
Relevant Papers
Jeong, M., Minson, J. A., & Soll, J. (2024). The Thrill of Intuition: Expectations of enjoyment increase adoption of intuitive choice strategies. Working paper. PDF
Dorison, C. A., DeWees, B. R., & Minson, J.A. (2024). Beyond accuracy: Independent judgment aggregation triggers negative interpersonal evaluations. Working paper. PDF
Collins, H. K., Minson, J. A., Kristal, A., Wood Brooks, A. (2024). Conveying and detecting listening during live conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 153(2), 473–494. PDF
Levin, J. M., Bukowski, L. A., Minson, J. A., & Kahn, J. M. (2023). The political polarization of COVID-19 treatments among physicians and laypeople in the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(7), e2216179120. PDF
Moore, M., Dorison, C. A., & Minson, J. A. (2023). The contingent reputational benefits of selective exposure to information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(12), 3490–3525. PDF
Minson, J. A. & Umphres, C. (2020). Confidence in context: Perceived accuracy of quantitative estimates decreases with repeated trials. Psychological Science, 31(8), 927-943. PDF
Dorison, C., Minson, J. A., Rogers, T. (2019). Selective exposure partly relies on faulty affective forecasts. Cognition, 188, 98-107. PDF
Logg, J., Minson, J. A. & Moore, D. A. (2019). Algorithm Appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 151, 90-103. PDF
Minson, J. A., Mueller, J. S. & Larrick, R. P. (2018). The contingent wisdom of dyads: When discussion enhances vs. undermines the accuracy of collaborative judgments. Management Science, 64, 4177-4192. PDF
Milkman, K.L., Minson, J. A. & Volpp K.G.M. (2014). Holding the Hunger Games hostage at the gym: An evaluation of temptation bundling. Management Science, 60(2), 283-299. PDF
Minson, J. A. & Mueller, J. S. (2013). Groups weight outside information less than individuals do, although they shouldn’t: Response to Schultze, Mojzisch, and Schulz-Hardt (2013). Psychological Science, 24(7), 1371-1372. PDF
Minson, J. A. & Mueller J. A. (2012). The cost of collaboration: Why joint decision making exacerbates rejection of outside information. Psychological Science, 3, 219-224. PDF
Liberman, V., Minson, J. A., Bryan, C. J. & Ross, L. (2012). Naïve realism and capturing the "wisdom of dyads." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 507-512. PDF
Minson, J. A. & Monin, B. (2012). Do-gooder derogation: Putting down morally-motivated others to defuse implicit moral reproach. Social and Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 200-207. PDF
Jacobson, J., Dobbs-Marsh, J., Liberman, V. & Minson, J. A. (2011). Predicting civil jury verdicts: How attorneys use (and mis-use) a second opinion. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 8(S1), 99-119. PDF
Minson, J. A., Liberman, V. & Ross, L. (2011). Two to tango: The effect of collaborative experience and disagreement on dyadic judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37 , 1325-1338. PDF