Society for the Advancement of Judgment and Decision Making Studies (SEJyD)
The Society for the Advancement of Judgment and Decision Making Studies (SEJyD) was established, for legal purposes, on September 28, 2014. The founding meeting was held on september 2013 in the Mind, Brain and Behaviour Research Center (CIMCYC) in order to create a network between different research groups focused on the study of human judgment and decision-making. The founding members are spanish scientists from the fields of psychology, neuroscience, behavioural economics, and sport sciences, among others, with strong formal or informal linkages to European research institutions. They are committed to the development of Judgment and Decision-making studies both in Europe and Latin America.
The primary aims of the SEJyD are to create a new platform on which sharing our common interest on this rapidly growing and evolving field, to promote the tutoring of young researchers, to make interdisciplinary collaborations possible, to elaborate joint research projects, and to attract international resources and contacts with similar well-established societies, both in USA and the rest of the world.
In the last decades, the study of human judgment and decision-making has been proven productive in a variety of fields as apparently distant as experimental, applied, clinical and social psychology, sport sciences, behavioural economics, politics, ergonomics and human factors, health sciences, law, etc.
Descriptive approaches have unveiled striking regularities in the way humans make judgments and decisions, and have provided effective ways to improve them in real environments. Normative approaches, on the other hand, have aided scientists and policy makers to draw the boundaries of human grounded rationality, and to develop decision protocols that can substitute or constrain human operators.
The success of judgment and decision-making as a field is based on some definitional features: interdisciplinarity, methodological and descriptive systematicity, continuous transference from the laboratory to daily-life contexts, distrust in over- and micro-theorization, and, over all, a good deal of critical sense. A taste for looking behind the obvious is certainly not uncommon among those who consider themselves judgment and decision scientists.
Currently, a number of internationally oriented research teams are contributing to the growing corpus of evidence in this field. Unfortunately, communication among these groups is still scarce, and no regular meetings exist in which authors from different traditions have the chance to learn from each other. Our aim is to close this gap.