Introductory description

The module introduces students to questions spanning the disciplines of economics, psychology and philosophy and aims to to set the three disciplines in interdisciplinary dialogue with each other.

Module web page

Module aims

Outline syllabus

This is an indicative module outline only to give an indication of the sort of topics that may be covered. Actual sessions held may differ.

Group Thinking: EPP Capstone Module

This module consists of a series of lectures on issues related to group thinking, the nature of reasoning that characterises group interactions, and the ways in which group thinking can lead to failures of reasoning. We will consider a range of group-thinking phenomena through the disciplinary lenses of Economics, Philosophy and Pychology, and consider how the issues discussed in the course can be informed by interdisciplinary dialogue.

The course will be cotaught by Richard Moore (Philosophy), an economist (TBC), and Daniel Read (WBS). We will discuss interdisciplinary approaches to a range of group thought phenomena, including the Tragedy of the Commons (our collective tendency to exhaust finite resources through poor management), zero-sum thinking (the tendency to incorrectly frame problems as zero-sum, where one person's gains necessarily imply a loss for others), my-side reasoning biases (the hypothesis that we evaluate evidence in a way that is biased towards our prior beliefs (Stanovich 2021)), dehumanisation (the tendency of members of certain groups characterise out-group members as ‘less than human’ (Haslam 2006; Livingstone Smith 2012; Over 2021)), and a range of issues in collective decision making, including the need to account for externalities (indirect costs of behaviour) in collective decision making (Schelling 1973).

The psychological phenomena under discussion will be addressed through two key questions, which will be revisited throughout the course:

1. How do philosophical issues (e.g. concerning the characterisation of target phenomena) affect the collection and interpretation of data on these topics?
2. How might issues of the interpretation of data have implications for policy formation?

This lecture series will also include a number of discussion sessions, in which lecturers and students will discuss overlapping ideas in the course materials, and developing connections between the topics of discussion, and the ways in which topics have been researched within and between disciplines.

Learning outcomes

By the end of the module, students should be able to:

• Demonstrate a good understanding of the ways in which a range of phenomena identified as aspects or consequences of group mindedness has been conceptualised in economics, psychology and philosophy.
• Demonstrate a good understanding of the different types of questions about group mindedness that are raised in each of the EPP disciplines.
• Demonstrate a good understanding of how the answers to these different types of questions bear upon one another, and upon issues of policy formation.
• Critically evaluate different theoretical accounts of group mind behaviours across the EPP disciplines.

Indicative reading list

Ashraf, N., Bau, N., Low, C. & McGinn, K. (2020). Negotiating a better future: How interpersonal skills facilitate intergenerational investment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 135(2): 1095-1151.

Bowles, H. R., Thomason, B., & Bear, J. B. (2019). Reconceptualizing what and how women negotiate for career advancement. Academy of Management Journal, 62(6), 1645-1671.

Esses, VV.M., Dovidio, J.F., Jackson, L.M. & Armstrong, T.L. (2001). The immigration dilemma: The role of perceived group competition, ethnic prejudice, and national identity. Journal of Social Issues, 57(3): 389-412.

Frischmann, B. M., Marciano, A., & Ramello, G. B. (2019). Retrospectives: Tragedy of the commons after 50 years. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(4), 211-28.

Haaland, I. & Roth, C. (2020). Labor market concerns and support for immigration. Journal of Public Economics, 191: 104256.

Hardin, G. (1968). Thc tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859): 1243-1248.

Ongis, M. & Davidai, S. (2021). Personal relative deprivation and the belief that economic success is zero-sum. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.

Ostrom, E. (2008). Tragedy of the commons. The new Palgrave dictionary of economics.

Ostrom, E. (1999). Coping with tragedies of the commons. Annual Review of Political Science, 2(1), 493-535.

Over, H. (2021). Seven challenges for the dehumanization hypothesis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(1), 3-13.

Schelling, T. C. (1973). Hockey helmets, concealed weapons, and daylight saving: A study of binary choices with externalities. Journal of Conflict rRsolution, 17(3): 381-428.

Sebenius, J. K. (1992). Negotiation analysis: A characterization and review. Management science, 38(1), 18-38.

Smith, D. L. (2011). Less than human: Why we demean, enslave, and exterminate others. St. Martin's Press.

Stanovich, K.E. (2021). The bias that divides us: The science and politics of myside thinking. MIT Press.

Warsitzka, M., Zhang, H., Loschelder, D. D., Majer, J. M., & Trötschel, R. (2022). How cognitive issue bracketing affects interdependent decision-making in negotiations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 99, 104268.

Interdisciplinary

This is an interdisciplinary module that explores issues at the intersection of Economics, Psychology and Philosophy.

Subject specific skills

Students should be able to express themselves using the accurate vocabulary employed within economics, psychology and philosophy, and appreciate the difference as well as connections between debates in the three disciplines. Additionally, they should be able to articulate the ways in which the theoretical issues of conceptualisation and data interpretation addressed in class might bear on policy formation.

Transferable skills

Students should be able to come to their own understanding of the relevant literature, explain key positions and arguments in their own words, and express themselves clearly in both spoken and written words. Students should be able to identify the important claims within readings, understand the structure of arguments, test views for strengths and weaknesses, make pertinent use of examples, and compare the substance of views consistently.