# data[].attributes.body
To fill in

# data[].attributes.body
To fill in

# data[].attributes.body
Expressed emotional ambivalence and negotiation outcomes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Unlocking integrative potential - Notes - Great article

# data[].attributes.body
How expressed emotional ambivalence elicits dominance in interdependent decision-making

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Steering Sheep - How expressed emotional ambivalence elicits dominance in interdependent decision making - Notes

# data[].attributes.body
Journals include:
= JNeurosci
= eNeuro
= NQ
= Nexus

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SfN Journals: Encouraging Innovation, Promoting Rigor

# data[].attributes.body
Peruse to your hearts content!

# data[].attributes.body
Figure 1: Diagram of the hypothesized interactions involved in buying decisions
Read More: https://michael-deppe.de/human-reward-system-neuroeconomics/

# data[].attributes.headline
Introduction to NeuroEconomics: How the Brain Makes Decisions (Coursera)

# data[].attributes.subject
Introduction to NeuroEconomics: How the Brain Makes Decisions (Coursera)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Economics, psychology, and neuroscience are converging today into a unified discipline of Neuroeconomics with the ultimate aim of creating a single, general theory of human decision-making. Neuroeconomics provides biologists, economists, psychologists and social scientists with a deeper understanding of how they make their own decisions and how others decide. Neuroscience, when allied with psychology and economics, creates powerful new models to explain why we make decisions. Neurobiological mechanisms of decision-making, decisions under risk, trust and cooperation will be central issues in this course. You will be provided with the most recent evidence from brain-imaging techniques (fMRI, TMS, etc.) and introduced to the explanatory models behind them. The course does not require any prior study of economics and neuroscience; however, it might require you to study novel interdisciplinary materials. The course provides an introduction to the methodology, assumptions, and main findings of Neuroeconomics. Our students have different backgrounds; therefore, I have adapted and simplified the course to allow all students to understand the interdisciplinary content. This course will help you to start your progress in the field of Neuroeconomics and to further develop your skills during other more advanced courses and trainings in the future. For some topics, the course will also provide supplementary videos to reveal the opinions of leading experts in the field. Each module provides optional reading material. The course structure is as follows: During each video, you will have to answer some relevant questions. Your answers will not affect your final grade. At the end of each module, you must complete a quiz consisting of 15 questions. To pass the course, you must reach a satisfactory standard in all the course modules by completing all graded quizzes and the final exam. In addition to watching video lectures and taking quizzes, you will receive an invitation to join our forum. We plan to join the discussions in the forum on a weekly basis. Welcome to Neuroeconomics World!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Introduction to Neuroeconomics: How the Brain Makes Decisions | Coursera

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Economics, psychology, and neuroscience are converging today into a unified discipline of Neuroeconomics with the ultimate aim of creating a single, general theory of human decision-making. Neuroeconomics provides biologists, economists, psychologists and social scientists with a deeper understanding of how they make their own decisions and how others decide.

# data[].attributes.headline
Everything you need to know about NeuroEconomics 

# data[].attributes.subject
Everything you need to know about NeuroEconomics 

# data[].attributes.body
Read More: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/10/everything-you-need-to-know-about-neuroeconomics/

# data[].attributes.body
Individuals are influenced by group discussion and may shift their decision based on the group. One can also be influenced by whoever speaks before them ("mere-exposure effect")

Stoner (1961) posited that group decisions are riskier than private, individual ones, known as the “risky shift”. Or sometimes, group decisions are more cautious than individual depending on the circumstances.

2 major mechanisms impacting choice shifts: social comparison processes - constantly processing information in how to present themselves (Sanders & Baron, 1977) and persuasion (Burnstein & Vinokur, 1977)

For articles and notes, see here: https://drive.google.com/drive/u/1/folders/1GLqjpQnWpWRh4H-LzxSeO81WFvrn411P

# data[].attributes.body
Emotional contagion is more of an automatic, subconscious process that happens through nonverbal cues and mimicry, interpersonal contact

Negative stimuli has a stronger responses than positive ones. Additionally, delivered with higher energy, there will be even more contagion than if with low energy.

Why is this important? People in more positive moods can lead to greater cooperation, more goodwill, less group conflict

For articles, see here: https://drive.google.com/drive/u/1/folders/1da49K_0t6MzpKaYowe_VqUBengRdYlT9

# data[].attributes.body
What is the difference between agreement and consent?

Consent doesn’t necessarily mean agreement. Silence can mean consent or dissent depending on the form of decision making. E.g. “Plops” or Decision by Lack of Response: silence signifies lack of agreement or Self-Authorization/Minority: silence is considered consent. (Schein, 2006, 297);

What are common "errors" in decision-making?

Voting can create coalitions (Schein, 2006, 300) or create premature perceptions of consensus without deliberating alternatives.

Speed vs. Quality

Majority Rules might lead to faster decisions than Consensus (Taylor et al., 2013), but less discussion takes place.

Group size impacts how easily (or if at all) a consensus can even be reached (Taylor et al. 2013)

# data[].attributes.body
Are there any differences that gender, ethnicity or culture have in decision-making processes?

Greater diversity in a group brings more viewpoints, increase deliberation, stay more objective and encourage greater scrutiny around each other's actions and biases, as well as increase creativity. (Rock & Grant, 2016)

What are common “errors” in decision-making?

In Groupthink - prioritizing harmony or concurrence over deliberation of opposing viewpoints

# data[].attributes.body
Are there any differences that gender, ethnicity or culture have in decision-making processes?

Women might be less willing to take risk. Those (men or women) who are more willing to take risks could be more likely to take the lead in a group and thus influence outcomes (Deng & Ji, 2014)

# data[].attributes.body
Groupthink: preserve harmony, concurrence seeking, strong group cohesion

Originally used to analyze political decision-making during a crisis when something went wrong

Janis proposed 8 symptoms of Groupthink: see notes in the folder for details

Original research did not take into consideration other aspects of group dynamics such as choice shifts (e.g. the “risky shift”) and group polarization. Not all about cohesion ('t Hart, 1991)

See articles and notes here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=16e22LMXdmqgbx-fGLyyiqPnsgxQoCzJw

# data[].attributes.headline
Decision Rules (summarized in Schein, 2006)

# data[].attributes.subject
Decision Rules (summarized in Schein, 2006)

# data[].attributes.body
Decision by Lack of Response (“plop”)

Decision by Formal Authority

Decision by Self-Authorization or Minority

Decision by Majority Rule

Decision by Unanimous Consent

Decision by Consensus

See articles and notes here: https://drive.google.com/drive/u/1/folders/1pSEAqlc3S9hZi7xF4ak1X8uXTwj933cZ?usp=drive_open

# data[].attributes.headline
To fit into Forrest's section at some point: Performance Pressure Paradox 

# data[].attributes.subject
To fit into Forrest's section at some point: Performance Pressure Paradox 

# data[].attributes.body
Gardner, 2012

High stakes and pressure in a project can cause a team to stop using time and resources as effectively as they should

Pressure leads to anxiety and team members to become more risk-averse, perhaps leading them to fall back into a "safe" zone rather than being more innovative

Could reduce amount of information being shared, deferring to authority, prioritizing consensus over productive deliberation

# data[].attributes.body
It's glorious!

# data[].attributes.body
Neuroeconomics is an interdisciplinary field that seeks to explain human decision making, the ability to process multiple alternatives and to follow a course of action. It studies how economic behavior can shape our understanding of the brain, and how neuroscientific discoveries can constrain and guide models of economics.[1]

Read More: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroeconomics

# data[].attributes.body
“The process of making choices among alternatives with the intention of moving toward some desired state of affairs (Shull, Delbecq and Cummings, 1970).”

# data[].attributes.body
What are common “errors” in decision-making?

Performance Pressure paradox: High stakes and pressure can lead a team to stop using time and resources as effectively as they should. E.g. they don't deliberate enough (Gardner, 2012)