Sakkapha T. Ngamake; Ji apa a a Ra eepa a akul; Sukanlaya Sawang
A icle
An e ol ing landscape o he psychology o judgmen and
decision-making: A bibliome ic analysis
Adminis a i e Sciences
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
MDPI – Mul idisciplina y Digi al Publishing Ins i u e, Basel
Sugges ed Ci a ion: Sakkapha T. Ngamake; Ji apa a a Ra eepa a akul; Sukanlaya Sawang (2024) :
An e ol ing landscape o he psychology o judgmen and decision-making: A bibliome ic analysis,
Adminis a i e Sciences, ISSN 2076-3387, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 14, Iss. 8, pp. 1-21,
h ps://doi.o g/10.3390/admsci14080162
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/320976
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/
Ci a ion: Ngamake, Sakkapha T.,
Ji apa a a Ra eepa a akul, and
Sukanlaya Sawang. 2024. An
E ol ing Landscape o he
Psychology o Judgmen and
Decision-Making: A Bibliome ic
Analysis. Adminis a i e Sciences 14:
162. h ps://doi.o g/10.3390/
admsci14080162
Recei ed: 5 June 2024
Re ised: 15 July 2024
Accep ed: 15 July 2024
Published: 26 July 2024
Copy igh : © 2024 by he au ho s.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Swi ze land.
This a icle is an open access a icle
dis ibu ed unde he e ms and
condi ions o he C ea i e Commons
A ibu ion (CC BY) license (h ps://
c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/
4.0/).
adminis a i e
sciences
A icle
An E ol ing Landscape o he Psychology o Judgmen
and Decision-Making: A Bibliome ic Analysis
Sakkapha T. Ngamake 1,*, Ji apa a a Ra eepa a akul 1and Sukanlaya Sawang 2
1Facul y o Psychology, Chulalongko n Uni e si y, Bangkok 10330, Thailand; [email p o ec ed]
2The Business School, Edinbu gh Napie Uni e si y, Edinbu gh EH14 1DJ, UK; s.sawang@napie .ac.uk
*Co espondence: [email p o ec ed]
Abs ac : As a discipline wi h an expansi e and in ica e landscape, he ield o judgmen and
decision-making (JDM) has e ol ed signi ican ly since he beginning o he 2020s. The ex ensi e
and in ica e na u e o his ield migh pose challenges o schola s and esea che s in designing
cou se con en and cu icula as well as in de ining esea ch bounda ies. Se e al echniques om
a bibliome ic s udy, such as co-wo d analysis and co-ci a ion analysis, can p o ide insigh s in o
he scopes and di ec ions o he ield. P e ious bibliome ic s udies on he psychology o JDM ha e
p ima ily analyzed published documen s es ic ed ei he by con en a eas o by jou nal ou le s. The
p esen s udy a emp s o analyze a collec ion o published documen s wi h b oad sea ch e ms (i.e.,
“judgmen *” o “decision mak*”) wi hin he pu iew o he psychology subjec a ea, sepa a ely by
yea s o publica ion ( om 2020 o 2022) using he bibliome ix package in he Ren i onmen . The
mos ele an jou nals and he mos equen keywo ds ha e sugges ed es ablished a eas o s udy,
unco e ing common hemes, pa e ns, and ends. Beyond ha , wo science mapping echniques (i.e.,
keywo d co-occu ence ne wo k and e e ence co-ci a ion ne wo k) e ealed 12 p ominen hemes
ha cu ac oss he h ee-yea pe iod. These hemes, alongside o he in ellec ually s imula ing issues,
we e discussed based on a compa ison wi h ou s anding book chap e s and e iews. Implica ions o
pedagogical pu poses we e also p o ided wi h a hand ul o no able esou ces.
Keywo ds: judgmen and decision-making; JDM; psychology; applied psychology; bibliome ics
1. In oduc ion
Judgmen and decision-making (JDM) d aws on a wide ange o disciplines, om
empi ical philosophy o neu oscience, o be e unde s and social phenomena. This di e -
si y o disciplines has a ac ed a b oad ange o schola s and expe s, leading o a ich
and a ied body o wo k ha has d i en he ield o wa d. Howe e , his di e si y can
p esen challenges, especially when ying o consolida e his b oad knowledge base o
ce ain academic ac i i ies. Fo example, designing a cou se o cu iculum, o ou lining
a book o chap e , can be di icul because i equi es a comp ehensi e unde s anding o
many di e en a eas. This complexi y o en poses challenges in o ganizing and p esen ing
in o ma ion in a way ha is accessible and meaning ul o s uden s o eade s.
Gi en he c i ical ole ha psychology plays in deciphe ing he in ica e mechanisms
ha d i e human decision-making p ocesses, i is unsu p ising ha he in e sec ion be-
ween psychology and JDM has become a cen al aspec o educa ion, esea ch, and p o-
essional p ac ice. Taking in o accoun he di e se na u e o he ields o psychology and
JDM, his cu en s udy aims o use a bibliome ic echnique o map ou in e disciplina y
connec ions, helping o unde s and how a ied disciplines con ibu e o and in luence
each o he . Bibliome ics is a way o look a da a om published schola ly documen s (e.g.,
jou nal a icles and book chap e s), and i can be used o wo main pu poses: pe o mance
analysis and science mapping (Zupic and ˇ
Ca e 2015). Pe o mance analysis in ol es
looking a who is publishing wha , whe e, and how o en. The cu en s udy will iden i y
Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 162. h ps://doi.o g/10.3390/admsci14080162 h ps://www.mdpi.com/jou nal/admsci
Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 162 2 o 21
he mos ele an jou nals and keywo ds and hen conduc he science mapping by using
echniques such as co-wo d analysis and co-ci a ion analysis o iden i y ends and pa e ns
in he ield. This unde s anding is i al o educa o s, esea che s, and p ac i ione s, as
i helps hem app ecia e he complexi y o psychology and JDM, design cu icula ha
p o ide a comp ehensi e iew o he ield, and o mula e esea ch ques ions ha cu
ac oss disciplines.
2. Landscape o JDM: Insigh s om Pas Bibliome ic Analyses, Book Chap e s, and
Re iews
2.1. Pas Bibliome ic Analyses
A bibliome ic app oach has been employed o documen and concep ualize he
knowledge base in di e se domains o JDM. Fo ins ance, Ba cellos-Paula e al. (2022)
conduc ed a bibliome ic e iew o published a icles in es iga ing 17 decision models
unde unce ain y. Among hese models we e he Analy ic Hie a chy P ocess, Ma ko
Chain, and Fuzzy Delphi Me hod, which migh be un amilia o JDM schola s in he ield o
psychology, unless hey a e well- e sed in managemen science. Cai e al. (2023) p esen ed
bibliome ic esul s analyzing published a icles ha included “collabo a i e decision mak-
ing” in hei i les, abs ac s, o keywo ds, while Laengle e al. (2018) p esen ed bibliome ic
esul s analyzing a icles published in G oup Decision and Nego ia ion om 1992–2016 ( o
hono and summa ize he jou nal’s 25-yea con ibu ion o he ield). Cai and colleagues’
wo k yielded six dis inc keywo d clus e s in he a ea o collabo a i e decision-making, en-
compassing sha ed decision-making, supply chain managemen , collabo a i e go e nance,
collabo a i e il e ing, collabo a i e/coope a i e lea ning, and quali y assu ance. In he
ealm o g oup decision-making and nego ia ion, Laengle and colleagues disco e ed ha
g oup decision-making, nego ia ion, and g oup suppo sys ems we e he mos equen ly
nomina ed keywo ds, wi h he ne wo k o co-occu ence keywo ds highligh ing esea ch
a eas such as con lic esolu ion, acili a ion, nego ia ion suppo sys ems, collabo a ion,
and consensus and elec onic nego ia ions.
S i as a a e al. (2021) conduc ed an upda ed s udy whe e hey analyzed bibliome -
ic da a ex ac ed om 145 a icles. These a icles we e published in Decision, a jou nal
ha co e s a b oad ange o JDM aspec s, om neu opsychological o sociocul u al and
economic pe spec i es. Employing a icle coupling analysis, he au ho s iden i ied six
dis inc esea ch domains ha a ac ed schola ly a en ion: a ionali y, unce ain y and
isky choices, in o ma ion sea ch and indi idual di e ences, ansi i i y and in e empo al
p e e ences, quan um decision-making models and emo ions, and ein o cemen lea ning
models. Fu he mo e, a keywo d co-occu ence ne wo k un eiled i e hema ic clus e s
o in e es : decision-making and ma hema ical modeling, p ospec heo y, con ex e ec s,
choice making, and lea ning. Al hough hese bibliome ic s udies had me i wi hin hei
espec i e a eas, in o de o ully u ilize he bibliome ic echniques in c a ing pedagogy
cou ses and book ou lines in he psychology o JDM, and o p o ide di ec ions o psychol-
ogy schola s engaged in basic and applied esea ch on JDM, a s udy ha del es in o he
expansi e landscape o he psychology o JDM is wa an ed.
2.2. Book Chap e s and Re iew
In addi ion o p e ious bibliome ic wo ks, ce ain book chap e s can p o ide a e o-
spec i e iew o he his o ical con luence be ween he domains o psychology and JDM. In
he in oduc o y chap e o he book Judgmen and Decision Making a Wo k, Highhouse
e al. (2014) p esen ed a his o ical pe spec i e and summa ized key miles ones in he ield
o JDM om he 1950s o 2000s, as well as p o iding in o ma ion abou popula books
au ho ed by p ominen schola s in he ield. Acco ding o he miles ones, du ing he 1950s,
se e al academics including Wa d Edwa ds, Paul Meehl, and He be Simon, among o he s,
expanded he scope o JDM by o e ing psychological explana ions o anomalies in human
JDM ha de ia ed om p e ailing economic heo ems. Fo example, Edwa ds (1954)
a emp ed o in eg a e psychological mechanisms and explana ions in o he amewo k
Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 162 3 o 21
o expec ed u ili y heo y. Mo eo e , Augie (2001) in oduced he concep o bounded
a ionali y by sha ing exce p s om an in e iew wi h He be Simon. F om he dialogue,
Simon encapsula ed he gis o bounded a ionali y by highligh ing ha “ he bounds a e
he bounds on knowledge, bounds on calcula ion, mul iple objec i es, o compe ing ob-
jec i es i you ha e a g oup o people compe ing o make he decision” (p. 272, o iginal
ex i alicized). Towa ds he 2000s, a a ie y o psychological and social mechanisms we e
p oposed o explain how people p oceed wi h in o ma ion, o m judgmen s, and make
decisions in e e yday li e. Some enowned examples we e subjec i e p obabili y and sub-
jec i e u ili y in p ospec heo y (Kahneman 1979), he in ica e in e play o in e pe sonal
dynamics and g oup decision-making (S one 1968), and he axonomy o disposi ional
decision-making s yles (Sco and B uce 1995). Recognizing ha JDM’s echnical e ms
(e.g., endowmen e ec and hindsigh bias) ha e been widely used in he popula p ess
and common con e sa ions, Highhouse and colleagues we e able o gauge he impo ance
o he psychology o JDM in applied se ings.
The landscape o JDM can also be illumina ed by examining i s p ominen handbook.
In he in oduc o y chap e o he Wiley Blackwell Handbook o Judgmen and Decision
Making, Ke en and Wu (2015a) ske ched a b ie his o y o JDM by o ganizing he salien
ma e ials ch onologically. Acco ding o wo hypo he ical handbooks (concei ed by Ke en
and Wu) and wo ac ual handbooks (Ke en and Wu 2015b;Koehle and Ha ey 2004), he
b ie his o y o JDM can be di ided in o ou pe iods: he ini ial pe iod (1954–1972), he
second pe iod (1972–1986), he hi d pe iod (1986–2002), and he ou h pe iod (2002–2014).
In hei opinions, h ee hemes eme ged du ing he ini ial pe iod, which ha e con inued
o in luence, mo e o less, he ajec o ies o esea ch and p ac ice in he ield: unce ain y
and p obabili y heo y, isk and u ili y heo y, and s a egic decision-making and game
heo y. The second pe iod in oduced concep s like expec ed u ili y heo y and p ospec
heo y, heu is ics and biases, and hei applica ions in di e se a eas including economics,
ma ke ing, medicine, and social psychology. In he ac ual handbook o JDM, aken om
Koehle and Ha ey (2004, p. i ), he in e disciplina y de elopmen o he ield o JDM
became e en mo e e iden : “ he 1980s and 1990s also saw he ield sp ead om i s o igin
in psychology o o he disciplines, a end ha had al eady begun in he 1970s.” This was
exempli ied by chap e s p esen ing he con ibu ions om a eas such as accoun ing and
inance, go e nance and public policy, and heal hca e, as well as he con ibu ions om
sub-a eas wi hin psychology such as social, cogni i e, de elopmen al, pe o mance, and
cul u al psychology. Fo he ou h pe iod ( ep esen ed by he handbook edi ed by Ke en
and Wu), i was e iden ha he ield o JDM has cap u ed he a en ion o nume ous
schola s and esea che s om di e se ields ( he handbook comp ises wo olumes wi h a
o al o 35 chap e s, explo ing new hemes such as decision om expe ience, neu oscience,
and mo al judgmen and decision-making). Looking ahead, Ke en and Wu concluded hei
chap e by highligh ing wo u u e ends in JDM: neu oscience and eal-wo ld applica ions,
mani es ing in he o ms o decision suppo sys ems and decision aids.
Ke en and Wu (2015b) u ilized a me hod o e iewing li e a u e on JDM published in
Annual Re iew o Psychology o he de elopmen and design o hei edi o ial handbook.
O e he las decade (2014–2023), Annual Re iew o Psychology has published 34 a icles
wi h i les, abs ac s, o keywo ds con aining “judgmen *” o “decision mak*”. These
publica ions ha e shed ligh on ongoing and eme ging ends wi hin he essence o JDM,
delinea ing h ee loosely in e connec ed concep ual g oupings.
The i s g oup e iewed ongoing ends in he psychology o JDM. Wi hin his g oup,
opics such as no ma i e and desc ip i e models o JDM (Summe ield and Pa pa 2022),
he in o ma ion p ocessing pa adigm (Oppenheime and Kelso 2015), he ole o emo ion
(Le ne e al. 2015), mo al judgmen and decision-making (T e iño e al. 2014;Malle 2021),
and g oup decision-making (S asse and Abele 2020) ha e been examined. The second
g oup ocused on upcoming ends, explo ing opics ha ha e in e mi en ly cap u ed
schola ly in e es om unique pe spec i es wi hin he psychology o JDM. These opics
included neu oscien i ic and neu opsychological ounda ions ha in e connec cogni ion,
Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 162 4 o 21
emo ion, mo i a ion, and ac ion (Flo esco 2015;Bo inick and B a e 2015), he e olu ion-
a y oo s o human decision-making (San os and Rosa i 2015), choice solu ions (Shaddy
e al. 2021), and human lea ning (Ge shman and Daw 2017;O’Dohe y e al. 2017). The
hi d g oup e iewed applica ions o he psychology o JDM in a ious con ex s, as well
as in eg a ions o es eemed and widely adop ed echniques in o he psychology o JDM.
These publica ions co e ed a ange o con ex s, including oca ion and ca ee (B own
and Len 2016;Wang and Shi 2014), wo k and o ganiza ion (Ryan and Ployha 2014),
ma ing (Buss and Schmi 2019), u h judgmen s (B ashie and Ma sh 2020), law and
judicial decision-making (Cla ch e al. 2020), and game-based applica ions (Van Dijk and de
D eu 2021). No ice ha besides publica ions ha explici ly emphasized neu oscience and
neu opsychology as cen al o hei syn hesized in o ma ion (Flo esco 2015;Bo inick and
B a e 2015), ce ain publica ions ouched upon how he phenomenon o in e es can be
explained om neu oscien i ic and neu opsychological an age poin s, he eby signaling
he impo ance o consolida ing psychological and social explana ions wi h unde lying
neu opsychological ac o s. Fo example, Summe ield and Pa pa (2022) inco po a ed
neu ocogni i e mechanisms when discussing se e al phenomena based on no ma i e and
desc ip i e models o JDM, and Van Dijk and de D eu (2021) men ioned neu ocompu a-
ional mechanisms in he con ex o u u e di ec ions and eme ging ends in designing and
implemen ing games o s udying social decision-making dynamics.
In he mos ecen e iew i led “Judgmen and Decision Making” in Annual Re iew
o Psychology, Fischho and B oomell (2020) emphasized he analysis o pe sonal and
ask cha ac e is ics when indi iduals o m hei judgmen s, s a e hei p e e ences, and
pick hei choices. The au ho s also e iewed esea ch s udies ha demons a ed in e -
indi idual di e ences and in a-indi idual di e ences (ac oss he li espan) in pe sonal
cha ac e is ics and compe encies ela ed o JDM, and hose ha assimila ed he heo ies
and concep s o JDM o enhance JDM p ocesses and ou comes ac oss a ious domains such
as expe judgmen , heal hca e, policy analysis, and isk communica ion.
2.3. The Cu en S udy
As he ou come o his bibliome ic s udy can se e as a guiding amewo k o
de eloping and/o upda ing cou se con en ha d aws upon he knowledge base o he
psychology o JDM, we ini ia ed an in o mal su ey o ga he cou se syllabi and cou se
con en s pe aining o JDM ia he Wo ld Wide Web. A o al o 21 cou se syllabi and/o
associa ed ma e ials we e sou ced, p ima ily o igina ing om psychology depa men s,
e en hough some emana ed om di e en depa men s such as managemen and business,
public policy and go e nmen , and heal h. By allying he opics posed in he cou se
con en s and cou se schedules, ou obse a ions un eiled heu is ics and biases as ocal
poin s, explici ly in eg a ed in o 14 ou o 21 cou ses (while we cau iously specula ed ha
hese opics migh be included in all he cou ses, hey migh no ha e been p ominen ly
displayed in he cou se ou lines), wi h he wo unne s-up being p ospec heo y and
he wo sys ems o easoning. On he applied on , he concep o nudges was explici ly
included in se en cou ses. Mo eo e , se e al in iguing opics ea u ed in mo e han one
cou se included de-biasing, isk pe cep ion and isk communica ion, beha io al game
heo y, mo al decision-making, g oup decision-making, s a egic decision-making, decision
ees, and applied Bayes heo em. Ne e heless, i is i al o acknowledge ha his lis
me ely p o ided a ough o e iew o he educa ional landscape in he psychology o JDM,
as ou app oach did no in ol e sys ema ic e ie al o cou se syllabi o igo ous analysis
o cou se con en s. Ye , we will keep his imp ession in mind as we p oceed o compa e
and con as i agains he esul s o he subsequen bibliome ic analysis.
In ligh o he inhe en ly explo a o y na u e o ou wo k, he cu en s udy does no
ame speci ic hypo heses o he o hcoming bibliome ic analysis. Any p econcei ed
hypo hesis could limi he examina ion o ce ain ou comes and po en ially o e look
b oade insigh s. Howe e , his s udy can p edic po en ial insigh s ha could eme ge
om he bibliome ic analysis, speci ically om he co-wo d analysis g ouping equen ly
Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 162 5 o 21
co-occu ing keywo ds. These insigh s will essen ially ake he o m o hemes a ising om
keywo d clus e s ac oss he h ee yea s (2020–2022), along wi h addi ional obse a ions
om a ious analyses conduc ed in he s udy. F om a p ac ical s andpoin , such hemes
can in o m schola s in hei academic wo k, such as adop ing esea ch ends and ou lining
cou ses/books.
The p edic ions a e g ounded on h ee key p emises. Fi s , a su ge is expec ed in
esea ch a he in e sec ion o neu oscience and echnology, including a i icial in elligence
and machine lea ning, wi h he goal o enhancing human decision-making h ough psy-
chological p ocesses. This p ojec ion aligns wi h Ke en and Wu’s (2015b) ou look and
is u he suppo ed by ecen a icles in Annual Re iew o Psychology ha in eg a e
neu oscien i ic and neu opsychological amewo ks in o he psychology o JDM. Second,
as he wo ld s ill na iga es he esidual impac s o he pandemic, i seems easonable ha
schola s om a ious ields, including he psychology o JDM, ha e s ee ed hei esea ch
owa ds ackling his global issue. Fo ins ance, he comp ehensi e e iew by Vilhelmsson
e al. (2021) bols e s his a gumen . Consequen ly, a signi ican hema ic eme gence o
he psychology o JDM applied o COVID-19 and heal h- ela ed issues can be an icipa ed.
Las ly, gi en he ex ensi e applicabili y o he psychology o JDM ac oss di e se domains
o human li e, he in eg a ion o no el psychological cons uc s and concep s in o he
ield o JDM can be expec ed. Such in eg a ion can equip esea che s and p ac i ione s
wi h a well- ounded unde s anding o phenomena, he eby assis ing hem in c ea ing
in e en ions and ea men s speci ic o pa icula con ex s. A s iking example o his is he
edi o ial book by Fluke e al. (2021), which exempli ies how a ious aspec s o psychology,
such as he heo y o planned beha io (Rod igues e al. 2021), can be employed o add ess
challenges in child wel a e and p o ec ion.
3. Me hods
3.1. Bibliome ic Analysis
Bibliome ic analysis is a big umb ella, encompassing a wide ange o analy ical ap-
p oaches ailo ed o a ious objec i es. As men ioned p e iously, bibliome ic analysis has
wo main unc ions, i.e., pe o mance analysis and science mapping (Zupic and ˇ
Ca e 2015).
In line wi h ou objec i es, we ocused on ou comes ha help schola s make well-in o med
decisions in hei academic pu sui s. This includes selec ing ele an opics o cou ses
o books and de e mining he app op ia e emphasis on speci ic con en . Fo pe o mance
analysis, pa icula emphasis was placed on iden i ying signi ican jou nal ou le s and
keywo ds, as hese elemen s can o e e ec i e sea ch pa ame e s o schola s seeking
o e ine hei wo k. The numbe o ci a ions o he jou nal a icles was de-emphasized
due o he limi ed ime ame (i.e., we exclusi ely conside ed jou nal a icles published in
2020–2022 so ha he numbe o ci a ions may p o ide incomple e in o ma ion). Fo science
mapping, we s i ed o co-wo d analysis and co-ci a ion analysis, sepa a ely analyzed by
publica ion yea s. A co-wo d analysis will yield a hema ic ne wo k ha illus a es ecen
hemes wi hin he ealm o psychology and JDM, isualizing hei spa ial ela ionships. A
co-ci a ion analysis will also yield a hema ic ne wo k, e ealing ecen hemes in e ed
om he collec i e ci a ions o a g oup o e e ences ac oss jou nal a icles. Th ough
hese analyses, we sough o unco e insigh ul di ec ions ha can in o m and upda e ou
unde s anding o hese subjec a eas, he eby en iching ou schola ly comp ehension.
3.2. The De ails o he Analyses
The co-wo d analysis and co-ci a ion analysis ha e speci ic de ails wo h men ioning.
To ensu e meaning ul concep ualiza ion o he ex ac ed hemes, we imposed cons ain s
on he keywo ds subjec ed o analysis, encompassing only hose ha appea ed in a ai
numbe o jou nal a icles, and in he same ein, also imposed cons ain s on he e e ences
being analyzed o hose ha ha e been ci ed by a ai numbe o jou nal a icles. Keywo ds
wi h minimum appea ances and e e ences wi h minimum ci a ions would inse oo
much noise in o he esul ing ne wo ks. In addi ion, bibliome ic da a e ie ed om he
Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 162 6 o 21
da abase may con ain duplica e keywo ds con eying equi alen seman ics (e.g., emo ion,
emo ions, and a ec ) o e e ences deno ing he same schola ly wo k (e.g., au ho names
ea u ing dis inc ini ial a ia ions). The e o e, we consolida ed in o ma ion om duplica e
keywo ds and e e ences be o e conduc ing co-wo d and co-ci a ion ne wo k analyses.
No ably, co-wo d ne wo ks we e examined based on a simila i y ma ix con aining he
numbe o a pai o keywo ds ha co-occu ed in jou nal a icles. Thus, keywo ds p esen ed
mo e equen ly in jou nal a icles we e mo e likely o exhibi co-occu ence wi h o he
keywo ds compa ed o hose p esen ed less equen ly. We planned o analyze co-wo d and
co-ci a ion ne wo ks disc e ely ac oss dis inc publica ion yea s, yielding h ee ne wo ks
each. In o de o p e en luc ua ions in keywo d and e e ence popula i y (which may
a y om yea o yea ) om exe ing undue in luence on he ne wo k’s s uc u e, we
decided o no malize co-occu ed keywo d da a by he o al equency o each keywo d
men ioned wi hin he annual pool o jou nal a icles, using he Sal on’s index (A ia and
Cuccu ullo 2017). Likewise, co-ci ed e e ence da a unde wen no maliza ion o he same
eason, using he same index.
3.3. The Rec ui men P ocess and a Final Pool
This bibliome ic s udy employed a highly explo a o y app oach, u ilizing b oad
sea ch e ms o encompass any a icles ela ed o he domain o psychology and JDM.
Speci ically, he sea ch e ms “judgmen *” OR “decision mak*” o a icle i les and key-
wo ds we e applied o he Scopus da abase. To educe a alse posi i e a e, hese e ms
we e no applied o abs ac s (e.g., au ho s migh ha e men ioned hese e ms o no i y
implica ions o hei indings wi h no essence ela ed o JDM). Fu he es ic ions included
subjec a ea (“psychology”), documen ype (“a icle” OR “ e iew”), language (“English”),
sou ce ype (“jou nal”), and yea (“2020”, “2021”, and “2022”). The esul ing bibliome ic
da a we e ob ained om 2733 a icles published in 2020, 2586 a icles published in 2021,
and 2745 a icles published in 2022. CSV iles con aining he da a we e e ie ed a he end
o Ap il 2023. Al hough Scopus selec s a icles based on bo h au ho and indexed keywo ds
unde he keywo ds ca ego y, a icles wi h he a ge sea ch e ms exclusi ely in he in-
dexed keywo ds we e no excluded, as some au ho s migh choose mo e speci ic keywo ds
wi hou men ioning b oade keywo ds like judgmen and decision-making. Non-con en
a icles we e sc eened ou , esul ing in he exclusion o wo awa d announcemen s and
one co ec ion o a p e ious publica ion. As a esul , he da ase consis ed o bibliome ic
da a ex ac ed om a o al o 8061 a icles, published o e h ee yea s: 2731 in 2020, 2586 in
2021, and 2744 in 2022. This a icle pool migh o e - ep esen he scope o he psychology
o JDM, bu as he aim o he s udy was o explo e a b oad landscape a he han d awing a
bounda y be ween a ious opics ela ed o he psychology o JDM, he o e -inclusion o
a icles would be p e e able o unde -inclusion.
4. Resul s
4.1. Pe o mance Analysis
In o al, bibliome ic da a om a co pus o 8061 a icles we e analyzed by yea o
publica ion. The a icles published in 2020 (n= 2731) we e w i en by 9961 au ho s, ci ed on
a e age 10.0 imes pe pape (2.5 imes pe pape pe yea ), and con ained 138,847 e e ences
and 7675 keywo ds. The mos ci ed a icle (wi h a o al o 2513 ci a ions) was he wo k by
Van Ba el e al. (2020), published in Na u e Human Beha iou , syn hesizing social and
psychological ac o s ha can impac human judgmen and decision-making p ocesses in
esponse o he COVID-19 pandemic. The a icles published in 2021 (n= 2586) we e w i en
by 8964 au ho s, ci ed on a e age 5.5 imes pe pape (1.8 imes pe pape pe yea ), and
con ained 143,647 e e ences and 7556 keywo ds. The mos ci ed a icles (equally wi h a
o al o 177 ci a ions) we e he wo ks by Ma aldi e al. (2021), published in Neu oscience
and Biobeha io al Re iews, me a-analyzing he p e alence o men al heal h conce ns
(e.g., dep ession, anxie y, and s ess) among heal hca e wo ke s in he pe iod o he COVID-
19 pandemic, and by Ha wood e al. (2021), published in he Lance Child and Adolescen
Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 162 7 o 21
Heal h, p esen ing he ou come o an online Delphi p ocess in eaching a na ional consensus
ega ding he pedia ic in lamma o y mul isys em synd ome empo ally associa ed wi h
COVID-19 as a decision guideline o heal hca e eams. The a icles published in 2022
(n= 2744) we e w i en by 9420 au ho s, ci ed on a e age 1.7 imes pe pape (0.8 imes
pe pape pe yea ), and con ained 155,367 e e ences and 8070 keywo ds. The mos ci ed
a icle was he wo k by Ma iani e al. (2022), published in Psychology and Ma ke ing,
u ilizing a bibliome ic app oach o clus e opics and heo e ical amewo ks wi hin he
ealms o ma ke ing, consume esea ch, and psychology wi h a ocus on hei ela ion o
he in ellec ual co pus on a i icial in elligence. Fo mo e de ails, please e e o Table S1 in
he Supplemen al Ma e ials o he op i e mos ci ed a icles by publica ion yea .
Table 1displays he op i e jou nal ou le s ha ha e published he mos a icles
ela ed o he psychology o JDM, o ganized by yea o publica ion. Al hough a di ec
compa ison be ween hese jou nal ou le s may no be easible due o a ying o al numbe s
o published a icles each yea , examining he end in jou nal names ac oss he yea s
can yield aluable insigh s. No ably, F on ie s in Psychology has consis en ly published
he highes numbe o a icles wi h i les o keywo ds ela ed o judgmen o decision-
making, which is in line wi h i s b oad co e age o psychology. Cogni ion, Technological
Fo ecas ing and Social Change, and Jou nal o Expe imen al Psychology (Gene al) ha e also
consis en ly been anked among he op jou nal ou le s o a leas wo yea s. Howe e , wo
ema kable jou nal ou le s we e Appe i e and Jou nal o In e pe sonal Violence. In 2020,
Appe i e published a o al o 41 a icles pu po edly connec ed o he psychology o JDM,
e lec ing he ole o psychology in explo ing consume decision-making and beha io ,
pa icula ly wi h ega d o ood choices (e.g., package labels; Temple 2020), ood pu chases
(e.g., in supe ma ke s o es; Machín e al. 2020), and e o s o educe mea consump ion
(Ha guess e al. 2020). Addi ionally, in 2021, Jou nal o In e pe sonal Violence published
40 a icles pu po edly connec ed o he psychology o JDM, highligh ing he applicabili y
o JDM heo ies o esea ch on in e pe sonal iolence such as mo al decision-making (e.g.,
mo ali y- ela ed emo ions and mo al ules; T i edi-Ba eman 2021), decisions made by
ic ims o c iminal ac s (e.g., decisions o epo inciden s and o seek help; Fissel 2021),
and he decision-making p ocess in ol ed in lea ing an abusi e pa ne (e.g., Ba ios e al.
2021). These indings unde sco ed he impo ance o he psychology o JDM in add essing
con empo a y socie al conce ns and he necessi y o expanding esea ch in hese domains.
Upon close examina ion o he op 10 keywo ds p esen ed in he manusc ip s by
yea o publica ion, ou key indings ha e eme ged (Table 2). Fi s , mo al judgmen and
decision-making consis en ly main ained i s p eeminen posi ion ac oss he h ee yea s.
When he igu es we e no malized by he o al numbe o a icles pe yea , a sligh upwa d
end was exhibi ed, indica ing an endu ing in e es among esea che s in del ing in o he
e hical dimensions o JDM. Second, he psychology o JDM may be bes s udied h ough
he in eg a ion o se e al p ocesses, encompassing bo h in aindi idual (e.g., cogni ion,
emo ion, a en ion, and mo i a ion) and in e indi idual (e.g., social cogni ion) ac o s.
Al hough hese keywo ds may no e eal speci ic ends wi hin he psychology o JDM,
esea che s can enhance hei knowledge base and esea ch epe oi e by s udying hese
undamen al concep s and hei in e play. Thi d, he psychology o JDM may consis en ly
in e sec wi h heal h- ela ed issues as we ound he keywo d cance in 2020 publica ions
and he keywo ds ela ed o he pandemic (COVID-19) and o men al heal h conce ns
(dep ession and anxie y) in 2021 and 2022 publica ions. Fou h, while he ends associa ed
wi h indi idual di e ences and assessmen keywo ds may no be as anspa en , hey
sugges ed ha esea che s may ha e s a ed o inco po a e he concep s and me hodologies
o in es iga ing indi idual di e ences (as well as psychological assessmen ) in o hei JDM
esea ch endea o s. A mo e in-dep h analysis o esea ch ends wi hin he psychology
o JDM will be conduc ed by sc u inizing he co-occu ence o keywo ds, using ne wo k
analysis and clus e analysis, as p esen ed in a subsequen sec ion.
Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 162 8 o 21
Table 1. The mos ele an jou nals.
Jou nal Pape s
Pape s published in 2020
1 F on ie s in Psychology 114
2 Cogni ion 70
3 Appe i e 41
4 Decision Suppo Sys ems 39
5 Neu opsychologia 39
Pape s published in 2021
1 F on ie s in Psychology 126
2 Technological Fo ecas ing and Social Change 82
3 Cogni ion 66
4 Jou nal o Expe imen al Psychology: Gene al 41
5 Jou nal o In e pe sonal Violence 40
Pape s published in 2022
1 F on ie s in Psychology 167
2 Technological Fo ecas ing and Social Change 80
3 Cogni ion 64
4 Cu en Psychology 50
5 Jou nal o Expe imen al Psychology: Gene al 44
Table 2. The op 10 mos equen keywo ds by yea o publica ion.
2020 2021 2022
Keywo ds
A icles
Keywo ds A icles Keywo ds A icles
1. Mo al judgmen and
decision-making
74 1. Mo al judgmen
and decision-making
83 1. Mo al judgmen
and decision-making
144
2. Open da a 55 2. COVID-19 48 2. Me acogni ion 48
3. Me acogni ion 48 3. Me acogni ion 44 3. COVID-19 44
4. A en ion 39 4. Emo ion 52 4. Dep ession 41
5. Emo ion 35 5. Mo i a ion 32 5. Social cogni ion 40
6. Social cogni ion 33 6. Social cogni ion 29 6. Emo ion 39
7. MRI 31 7. A en ion 28 7. Cogni ion 31
8. Cogni ion 30 8. Con idence 28 8. A en ion 29
9. Indi idual di e ences
30 9. Unce ain y 27 9. Unce ain y 28
10. Cance 28 10. Anxie y 26 10. Aging &
Assessmen & Gende
25
No e: The keywo ds judgmen and decision-making we e in en ionally excluded om hese lis s because hey
we e used as sea ch e ms in his bibliome ic analysis. Including hem in he lis s would no p o ide addi ional
in o ma ion o e en may be misleading. Keywo ds ha we e synonymous o closely ela ed we e combined o
a oid edundancy.
4.2. Science Mapping
In e ms o science mapping, his s udy employed wo ypes o ne wo k analyses:
keywo d co-occu ence ne wo ks and e e ence co-ci a ion ne wo ks. Wi hin a ne wo k, a
walk ap algo i hm was used o de ec ne wo k communi ies (i.e., keywo d clus e s and
e e ence clus e s), and a F uch e man–Reingold algo i hm was used o layou he ne wo k
plo (bo h algo i hms a e om he ne wo kPlo unc ion o he bibliome ix package (A ia
and Cuccu ullo 2017)). To p io i ize he consis ency o hemes ac oss he h ee yea s a he
han indi idual idiosync asies, we would p esen he esul s based on commonali ies
ex ac ed om he h ee ne wo ks o each ype. Any no ewo hy inconsis encies o unique
indings will be a ended o in he discussion sec ion.
4.3. Keywo d Co-Occu ence Ne wo k Analysis
When analyzing keywo d co-occu ence ne wo ks, a p ep ocessing s ep was aken o
g oup synonymous (e.g., mo al judgmen and mo al judgmen s) o concep ually close (e.g.,
emo ion and a ec ) e ms in o de o enhance subsequen clus e analysis. Keywo ds ha
did no deno e con en a eas (bu a he con eyed esea ch policies such as open da a o
Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 162 15 o 21
should ind hei place wi hin he handbook o JDM (and some JDM cou ses), ei he as
s andalone chap e s o as in eg al componen s o a mo e comp ehensi e chap e .
F om he wo science mapping echniques, we can iden i y nine hemes om he
keywo d co-occu ence ne wo k analysis and addi ional h ee hemes (along wi h key
e e ences) om he e e ence co-ci a ion ne wo k analysis. The ollowing hemes can be
ex ac ed om he keywo d clus e s: mo al JDM, judgmen s o lea ning, oncology and
decision-making p ocesses, delay discoun ing, ju o decision-making and iolen cases,
us , mind ulness, aging and ein o cemen lea ning, and JDM in clinical popula ions.
Th ee mo e hemes can be added om he e e ence clus e s: neu oimaging echniques,
di usion models, and ca ee decision-making. Fundamen ally, mos o hese 12 hemes a e
no new o he ealm o JDM, as comp ehensi e e iews and book chap e s ha e p e iously
p o ided subs an ial insigh s in o hese opics (e.g., Ba els e al. (2015) and Malle (2021)
o mo al JDM, Ko ia (2015) o judgmen s o lea ning and me acogni ion, Tapp and Blais
(2019) and Gessle e al. (2019) o oncology, sha ed decision-making, and decision suppo
ools, U minsky and Zaube man (2015) o delay discoun ing, Koehle and Meixne (2015)
o ju o decision-making and Lausi e al. (2023) o iolence, abuse, and decision-making,
Pa en (2022) o us , cogni i e bias, and decision-making, Ge shman and Daw (2017)
o ein o cemen lea ning, memo y, and decision-making, San ey and S allen (2015) o
neu oscien i ic accoun s on JDM, Ra cli e al. (2016) o di usion decision models, and
Akosah-Twumasi e al. (2018) and Bian (2023) o ca ee decision-making and ca ee
indecision). To ou knowledge, we ha e no been awa e o any esea ch p og ams o
amewo ks inco po a ing mind ulness as a co e ac o o delinea ing o imp o ing one’s
JDM p ocesses. Acco ding o he keywo ds ha clus e ed a ound mind ulness, wo lines o
esea ch may appea in he li e a u e: mind ulness and aes he ic expe ience (Ha ison and
Cla k 2016), and mind ulness and ood choice (Fa a e al. 2022). Al hough hese lines o
esea ch may no ye me i comp ehensi e e iews o comple e chap e s, hey hold p omise
in ad ancing ou unde s anding o he psychology o JDM by inco po a ing “ he beha io
o he mind” (Mikulas 2011) o explica e JDM p ocesses and mechanisms. In addi ion, a
my iad o esea ch s udies on JDM ha e been conduc ed wi h a ious g oups o clinical
popula ions such as indi iduals wi h Alzheime ’s disease, demen ia, and au ism. Al hough
we could no de ini i ely pinpoin he di ec ion in which he esea ch on JDM and speci ic
clinical popula ions will p og ess by me ely specula ing on a g oup o keywo ds, i is
sa e o say ha as an in e disciplina y ield, he psychology o JDM can o e conside able
po en ial o mi iga e he impai ed aspec s o JDM p ocesses o pa ien s and o enhance he
accu acy o diagnosis and assessmen o p ac i ione s.
Pe aining o he educa ed guesses men ioned ea lie , despi e he lack o de ailed
in o ma ion, he h ee guesses gene ally aligned wi h he esul s, hough o a ying deg ees
o p ecision. Fi s , we obse ed ce ain keywo ds ele an o neu oscien i ic and neu oimag-
ing me hods (e.g., MRI and EEG) as well as echnology-based applica ions aiding JDM
p ocesses (e.g., machine lea ning and i ual eali y). These keywo ds we e men ioned so
equen ly in he li e a u e ha hei inclusion in he ne wo k analysis was wa an ed, bu
hei hema ic cohesion wi h o he keywo ds appea ed o be less consis en and less clea .
Neu oscien i ic unde s anding has a solid g ound in mo al JDM (po en ially s emming
om highly ci ed wo ks by G eene e al. (2001,2004)), whe e emo ions play a i al ole
in he cou ses o ope a ions. Hence, ou conjec u e was ha neu oscien i ic explana ions
and me hods would be expanded o o he pa s o he psychology o JDM, especially
hose in ol ing judgmen and decision asks ha e oke s ong emo ional esponses. Fo
echnology-based applica ions, e en hough disce nable pa e ns ela ed o hese a eas
we e no eadily obse ed in he science mapping analyses, he highly ci ed a icle by
Ma iani e al. (2022) may p o ide insigh s in o a leas eigh p ospec i e domains whe e
in eg a ing psychological mechanisms wi h machine lea ning and a i icial in elligence
could yield subs an ial insigh s (e.g., echnology accep ance and adop ion in JDM and da a
mining h ough social media).
Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 162 16 o 21
Second, he keywo d COVID-19 was iden i ied in he keywo d co-occu ence ne wo ks
ac oss he h ee yea s. No ably, h ee highly ci ed a icles published in 2020 and 2021
p esen ed JDM app oaches and in e en ions aimed a add essing issues ela ed o he
pandemic (Ma y e al. 2021;Pennycook e al. 2020;Van Ba el e al. 2020), unde sco ing
he widesp ead use o JDM heo e ical and echnical pe spec i es o d i e beha io al
change du ing he pandemic. Al hough we could no de ini ely iden i y majo esea ch
opics solely ela ed o he keywo d COVID-19 wi hin he keywo d co-occu ence ne wo ks
(due o i s loca ion wi hin a la ge clus e ), i is undeniable ha he ield o JDM has
lea ned so much om he pandemic ha aking s ock o knowledge abou he use o JDM
echniques o la ge-scale beha io al change may po en ially wa an a dedica ed chap e
o a subs an ial sec ion o i . Thi d, ce ain keywo ds p e iously ou side he mains eam o
JDM ha e eme ged, including bu no limi ed o in ima e pa ne iolence, child sexual
abuse, heo y o mind, mind ulness, social media, and ca ee decision-making. Collec i ely,
hese keywo ds ha e pain ed a b oade pic u e o JDM in di e se con ex s, ex ending
beyond labo a o y and a gambling pa adigm, o acili a e judgmen and decision-making
p ocesses in he milieu o eal-wo ld p oblems.
F om a pedagogical s andpoin , h ee e e ences ha should be included in he eading
lis o any JDM cou se a e Kahneman (1979,2011) and T e sky and Kahneman (1981)
o p epa e lea ne s wi h majo heo e ical amewo ks and his o ical pe spec i es in he
psychology o JDM. In cases whe e equi ing a book o eading may be imp ac ical o in-
easible, ei he inancially o logis ically, ins uc o s migh conside using Kahneman (2003)
as a compac al e na i e o Kahneman (2011). As he in o mal su ey o he cou se syllabi
e ealed ha heu is ics and biases, p ospec heo y, and he wo sys ems o easoning we e
common opics ac oss mos cou ses, we specula ed ha mos ins uc o s ha e inco po a ed
hese e e ences o solidi y he common g ound o he lea ne s o JDM. Fu he mo e, om
he analyses o he mos ci ed e e ences and he e e ence co-ci a ion ne wo ks, ins uc o s
can selec addi ional e e ences ele an o hei cou se con en ; o ins ance, T e sky and
Kahneman (1974) and Gige enze and Gaissmaie (2011) o mo e abou heu is ics and
biases, Haid (2001) and G eene e al. (2001) o mo al JDM, Damasio (1994) and Becha a
e al. (1994) o emo ional and neu ological aspec s o JDM, Ra cli and Smi h (2004) and
Ra cli e al. (2016) o apid decision-making wi h wo-choice asks, Bandu a (1986) and
Ajzen (1991) o social and cogni i e in luences on JDM, and Delo me and Makeig (2004)
and Polich (2007) o wo king wi h EEG. Tu ning o me hodological s andpoin s, while
he inclusion o me hodological and s a is ical e e ences could no (and should no ) be
en e ained in JDM cou ses, ins uc o s o he psychology o JDM should s ill be awa e o
essen ial me hodologies and s a is ical analyses, as well as hei ma e ials, o guide lea ne s
in e es ed in JDM esea ch. Fo esea ch examining indi idual di e ences, Hayes’ (2013)
book and i s ecen edi ion, which con ain p inciples and p ac ices in media ion, mode -
a ion, and condi ional p ocess analysis, may be wo h explo ing. Fo esea ch in ol ing
expe imen al manipula ion, Ba es e al. (2015) a icle, which in oduces he lme4 package
o analyzing hie a chical and nes ed da a such as epea ed measu emen s in expe imen al
designs, may be an in aluable esou ce.
Al oge he , he ecommenda ions p esen ed abo e we e la gely consis en wi h he
pe spec i es pu o h by Weiss and Shan eau (2021), who conside ed he ollowing ou
app oaches o JDM o be success ul: he classical concep ualiza ion o heu is ics and biases
(e.g., Gilo ich e al. 2002), he adap i e oolbox pe spec i e on heu is ics (e.g., Gige enze
2008), medical decision-making (e.g., Chapman 2019;Kaplan and F osch 2005), and signal
de ec ion heo y (e.g., DeCa lo 2002). In he nomencla u e o Weiss and Shan eau, he e m
success ul was de ined as “[an app oach] con inues o be ou inely used by people who
a e no lineal descendan s (s uden s, g ands uden s, pos -docs) o he de elope s” (p. 10).
Al hough Weiss and Shan eau’s lis o less success ul JDM app oaches was no ably mo e
ex ensi e and included some opics ound in ou bibliome ic analysis, we main ain an
op imis ic ou look on he u u e o JDM by obse ing he applica ion o JDM app oaches
ac oss a ious con ex s. Equipped wi h ad anced modeling echniques o sol e beha io al
Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 162 17 o 21
challenges in eal-wo ld decisions, we an icipa e ha mo e JDM app oaches will e en ually
ea n a place on he “success ul” lis , mee ing he expec a ions o bo h schola ly and non-
schola ly audiences. Following Mon aze i e al. (2023), we p o ide a “ ake-home message”
o he eade s. In pa icula , while ce ain opics ha eme ged om he analysis ha e been
ecognized by schola s in he ield (as e idenced by e iews and book chap e s), o he
opics may escape he schola s’ a en ion o may no ye be ma u e enough and need mo e
ocus. As some schola ly ac i i ies may seek no el y (e.g., esea ch in eg a ion and cou se
design) o comp ehension (e.g., book/chap e ou lines), he hemes and key e e ences
om his s udy can acili a e hese ac i i ies o achie e g ea e academic igo .
Wi h he in en ion o gaining a comp ehensi e unde s anding o he landscape o he
psychology o JDM, he lack o de ails in he hemes eme ging om ou analyses may be
a sho coming o his s udy. The expansi e na u e o each heme may po en ially hinde
he speci ic a icula ion o he scopes and di ec ions wi hin he hemes. In e es ed eade s
a e encou aged o explo e in-dep h sub- opics and addi ional ma e ials o use in hei
esea ch campaign and/o cou se design. Mo eo e , some clus e s wi hin he keywo d
co-occu ence ne wo ks and e e ence co-ci a ion ne wo ks con ained o e 20 i ems, making
i challenging o dis ill p ecise hemes and opics om hese clus e s. This limi a ion may
be inhe en o he c i e ion ha only keywo ds and e e ences wi h a subs an ial numbe
o men ions in he a icles we e included in he analysis. As a consequence, some opics
may ha e oo ew a numbe o keywo ds o e e ences o o m an au onomous clus e .
B oadening his c i e ion migh none heless lead o he inclusion o less signi ican hemes,
bu we aimed o iden i y a easonable numbe o hemes and opics ha ha e genuinely
a ac ed a en ion om schola s and esea che s in he ield. Fu he mo e, as ou plan
was o analyze he a icles published du ing a ela i ely sho ime ame a he beginning
o he 21s cen u y (2020–2022), opics wi h luc ua ing popula i y ends may no be
ully ep esen ed in his s udy. Expanding he yea s o publica ion migh alle ia e his
limi a ion, bu i migh comp omise ou yea -by-yea analyses, which is a dis inc i e ea u e
o he p esen s udy. Gi en ha he a icles included in he analysis we e es ic ed o he
psychology subjec a ea, as indexed by Scopus, i can be implied ha he ex ac ed hemes
and ela ed keywo ds/ e e ences would emphasize p ima ily in a- and in e -indi idual
p ocesses o JDM in di e se con ex s. O he subjec a eas such as medicine o compu e
science would o e di e en hemes and landscapes (e.g., JDM applied in medical se ings
o human-compu e in e ac ions). Despi e i s limi a ions, his s udy has o e ed a glimpse
in o he e ol ing landscape o JDM, ea u ing 12 es ablished hemes and po en ial a eas o
expansion de i ed om a ious bibliome ic analyses. Schola s can use he in o ma ion
om he a icles and keywo ds highligh ed in his s udy as a s a ing poin . Coupled
wi h p ominen e e ences ela ed o hei a eas o in e es , his in o ma ion can se e as
a aluable esou ce o schola s o di ec esea ch p og ams, ou line book chap e s, and
de elop academic cou ses. Wi h a as and di e se a ea o s udy unde he scope o JDM
e idenced in his s udy, we belie e ha he ield has as much o o e mo e han e e be o e.
Supplemen a y Ma e ials: The ollowing suppo ing in o ma ion can be downloaded a : h ps:
//www.mdpi.com/a icle/10.3390/admsci14080162/s1, Table S1: The i e mos ci ed pape s by yea
o publica ion; Table S2: Keywo d clus e s ex ac ed om he pape s published in 2020; Table S3:
Keywo d clus e s ex ac ed om he pape s published in 2021; Table S4: Keywo d clus e s ex ac ed
om he pape s published in 2022; Table S5: The 10 mos ci ed e e ences om he pape s published
in 2020; Table S6: The 10 mos ci ed e e ences om he pape s published in 2021; Table S7: The
10 mos ci ed e e ences om he pape s published in 2022; Table S8: Re e ences wi h he highes
closeness cen ali y in he 2020 ne wo k; Table S9: Re e ences wi h he highes closeness cen ali y in
he 2021 ne wo k; Table S10: Re e ences wi h he highes closeness cen ali y in he 2022 ne wo k.
Au ho Con ibu ions: Concep ualiza ion, S.T.N. and J.R.; me hodology, S.T.N.; so wa e, S.T.N.;
alida ion, S.T.N., J.R. and S.S.; o mal analysis, S.T.N.; in es iga ion, S.T.N.; esou ces, S.T.N.; da a
cu a ion, S.T.N. and J.R.; w i ing—o iginal d a p epa a ion, S.T.N. and J.R., w i ing— e iew and
edi ing, S.S.; isualiza ion, S.T.N., J.R. and S.S.; supe ision, S.S.; p ojec adminis a ion, S.T.N. and
Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 162 18 o 21
J.R.; unding acquisi ion, S.T.N. and J.R. All au ho s ha e ead and ag eed o he published e sion o
he manusc ip .
Funding: This p ojec has been g an ed unds om Psychology Cen e o Li e-Span De elopmen
and In e gene a ion, Chulalongko n Uni e si y, The Second Cen u y Fund (C2F): g an numbe
1384208000.
Ins i u ional Re iew Boa d S a emen : No applicable.
In o med Consen S a emen : No applicable.
Da a A ailabili y S a emen : The o iginal con ibu ions p esen ed in he s udy a e included in he
a icle/Supplemen a y Ma e ials, u he inqui ies can be di ec ed o he co esponding au ho .
Con lic s o In e es : The au ho s decla e no con lic o in e es .
Re e ences
Ajzen, Icek. 1991. The heo y o planned beha io . O ganiza ional Beha io and Human Decision P ocesses 50: 179–211. [C ossRe ]
Akosah-Twumasi, Pe e , Theophilus Eme o, Daniel Lindsay, Komla Tsey, and Bunmi Malau-Aduli. 2018. A sys ema ic e iew o ac o s
ha in luence you hs ca ee choices– he ole o cul u e. F on ie s in Educa ion 3: 58. [C ossRe ]
Ame ican Psychia ic Associa ion. 2013. Diagnos ic and S a is ical Manual o Men al Diso de s: DSM-5. Washing on, DC: APA.
A ia, Massimo, and Co ado Cuccu ullo. 2017. bibliome ix: An R- ool o comp ehensi e science mapping analysis. Jou nal o
In o me ics 11: 959–75. [C ossRe ]
Augie , Mie. 2001. Simon says: Bounded a ionali y ma e s. Jou nal o Managemen Inqui y 10: 268–75. [C ossRe ]
Bandu a, Albe . 1986. Social ounda ions o hough and ac ion. In The Heal h Psychology Reade . Edi ed by Da id Ma ks. Thousand
Oaks: Sage, pp. 94–106.
Bandu a, Albe . 1997. Sel -E icacy: The Exe cise o Con ol. New Yo k: F eeman and Company.
Ba cellos-Paula, Luciano, I án de La Vega, and Anna Gil-La uen e. 2022. Bibliome ic e iew o esea ch on decision models in
unce ain y, 1990–2020. In e na ional Jou nal o In elligen Sys ems 37: 7300–33. [C ossRe ]
Ba ios, Ve onica, Lyndal Khaw, Au umn Be mea, and Jenni e Ha des y. 2021. Fu u e di ec ions in in ima e pa ne iolence esea ch:
An in e sec ionali y amewo k o analyzing women’s p ocesses o lea ing abusi e ela ionships. Jou nal o In e pe sonal Violence
36: NP12600–NP12625. [C ossRe ]
Ba els, Daniel M., Ch is ophe W. Bauman, Fie y A. Cushman, Da id A. Piza o, and A. Pe e McG aw. 2015. Mo al judgmen and
decision making. In The Wiley Blackwell Handbook o Judgmen and Decision Making. Edi ed by Gideon Ke en and Geo ge Wu.
Malden: Wiley, pp. 478–515.
Ba es, Douglas, Ma in Mächle , Benjamin Bolke , and S e en Walke . 2015. Fi ing linea mixed-e ec s models using lme4.Jou nal o
S a is ical So wa e 67: 1–48. [C ossRe ]
Becha a, An oine, An onio Damasio, Hanna Damasio, and S e en Ande son. 1994. Insensi i i y o u u e consequences ollowing
damage o human p e on al co ex. Cogni ion 50: 7–15. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
Be z, Nancy E., Klein L. Klein, and Ka en M. Taylo . 1996. E alua ion o a sho o m o he Ca ee Decision-Making Sel -E icacy Scale.
Jou nal o Ca ee Assessmen 4: 47–57. [C ossRe ]
Bian, Xinyi. 2023. Ca ee indecision: An in eg a i e e iew and esea ch agenda. Eu opean Jou nal o T aining and De elopmen 47: 166–82.
[C ossRe ]
Bo inick, Ma hew, and Todd B a e . 2015. Mo i a ion and cogni i e con ol: F om beha io o neu al mechanism. Annual Re iew o
Psychology 66: 83–113. [C ossRe ]
B ashie , Nadia M., and Elizabe h J. Ma sh. 2020. Judging u h. Annual Re iew o Psychology 71: 499–515. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
B aun, Vi ginia, and Vic o ia Cla ke. 2006. Using hema ic analysis in psychology. Quali a i e Resea ch in Psychology 3: 77–101.
[C ossRe ]
B own, S e en D., and Robe W. Len . 2016. Voca ional psychology: Agency, equi y, and well-being. Annual Re iew o Psychology
67: 541–65. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
Buss, Da id M., and Da id P. Schmi . 2019. Ma e p e e ences and hei beha io al mani es a ions. Annual Re iew o Psychology
70: 77–110. [C ossRe ]
Cai, Yuhang, Fei ei Jin, Jinpei Liu, Ligang Zhou, and Zhi u Tao. 2023. A su ey o collabo a i e decision-making: Bibliome ics,
p elimina ies, me hodologies, applica ions and u u e di ec ions. Enginee ing Applica ions o A i icial In elligence 122: 106064.
[C ossRe ]
Chapman, G e chen B. 2019. A decision-science app oach o heal h-beha io change. Cu en Di ec ions in Psychological Science
28: 469–74. [C ossRe ]
Cha maz, Ka hy. 2014. Cons uc ing G ounded Theo y. Washing on, DC: Sage.
Cla ch, Lau en, Ashley Wal e s, and Eugene Bo gida. 2020. How in e disciplina y? Taking s ock o decision-making esea ch a he
in e sec ion o psychology and law. Annual Re iew o Psychology 71: 541–61. [C ossRe ]
Damasio, An onio. 1994. Desca es’ E o : Emo ion, Reason, and he Human B ain. New Yo k: Pu nam.
Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 162 19 o 21
DeCa lo, Law ence T. 2002. Signal de ec ion heo y wi h ini e mix u e dis ibu ions: Theo e ical de elopmen s wi h applica ions o
ecogni ion memo y. Psychological Re iew 109: 710–21. [C ossRe ]
Delo me, A naud, and Sco Makeig. 2004. EEGLAB: An open sou ce oolbox o analysis o single- ail EEG dynamics including
independen componen analysis. Jou nal o Neu oscience Me hods 134: 9–21. [C ossRe ]
Edwa ds, Wa d. 1954. The heo y o decision making. Psychological Bulle in 51: 380–417. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
Fa a , S ephanie, Anke Plagnol, and Ka y Tappe . 2022. The e ec o p iming on ood choice: A ield and labo a o y s udy. Appe i e
168: 105749. [C ossRe ]
Fischho , Ba uch, and S ephen B oomell. 2020. Judgmen and decision making. Annual Re iew o Psychology 71: 331–55. [C ossRe ]
[PubMed]
Fissel, E ica R. 2021. The epo ing and help-seeking beha io s o cybe s alking ic ims. Jou nal o In e pe sonal Violence 36: 5075–100.
[C ossRe ] [PubMed]
Flo esco, S an B. 2015. The nucleus accumbens: An in e ace be ween cogni ion, emo ion, and ac ion. Annual Re iew o Psychology
66: 25–52. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
Fluke, John, Mónica López, Rami Benbenish y, E ik Kno h, and Donald Baumann. 2021. Decision-Making and Judgmen in Child Wel a e
and P o ec ion. New Yo k: Ox o d.
Geh ing, William J., and Ad ian R. Willoughby. 2002. The medial on al co ex and he apid p ocessing o mone a y gains and losses.
Science 295: 2279–82. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
Ge shman, Samuel J., and Na haniel D. Daw. 2017. Rein o cemen lea ning and episodic memo y in humans and animals: An
in eg a i e amewo k. Annual Re iew o Psychology 68: 101–28. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
Gessle , Danielle, Ilona Ju asko a, U sula Sansom-Daly, Hea he Shephe d, Pando a Pa e son, and Danielle Musca . 2019. Clinician-
pa ien - amily decision-making and heal h li e acy in adolescen s and young adul s wi h cance and hei amilies: A sys ema ic
e iew o quali a i e s udies. Psycho-Oncology 28: 1408–19. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
Gige enze , Ge d. 2008. Why heu is ics wo k. Pe spec i es on Psychological Science 3: 20–29. [C ossRe ]
Gige enze , Ge d, and Wol gang Gaissmaie . 2011. Heu is ic decision making. Annual Re iew o Psychology 62: 451–82. [C ossRe ]
Gilo ich, Thomas, Dale G i in, and Daniel Kahneman. 2002. Heu is ics and Biases: The Psychology o In ui i e Judgmen . New Yo k:
Camb idge.
G eene, Joshua D., Leigh E. Nys om, And ew D. Engell, John M. Da ley, and Jona han D. Cohen. 2004. The neu al bases o cogni i e
con lic and con ol in mo al judgmen . Neu on 44: 389–400. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
G eene, Joshua D., R. B ian Somme ille, Leigh E. Nys om, John M. Da ley, and Jona han D. Cohen. 2001. An MRI in es iga ion o
emo ional engagemen in mo al judgmen . Science 293: 2105–8. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
Haid , Jona han. 2001. The emo ional dog and i s a ional ail: A social in ui ionis app oach o mo al judgmen . Psychological Re iew
108: 814–34. [C ossRe ]
Ha guess, Jamie M., Noe C. C espo, and Mee Y. Hong. 2020. S a egies o educe mea consump ion: A sys ema ic li e a u e e iew o
expe imen al s udies. Appe i e 144: 104478. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
Ha ison, Neil R., and Daniel P. Cla k. 2016. The obse ing ace o ai mind ulness p edic s equency o aes he ic expe iences
e oked by he a s. Mind ulness 7: 971–78. [C ossRe ]
Ha wood, Rachel, Benjamin Allin, Ch is ine Jones, Elizabe h Whi ake , Padmanabhan Ramna ayan, A himalaipe Ramanan, Musa
Kaleem, Robe Tulloh, Ma k Pe e s, Simon Kenny, and e al. 2021. A na ional consensus managemen pa hway o paedia ic
in lamma o y mul isys em synd ome empo ally associa ed wi h COVID-19 (PIM-TS): Resul s o a na ional Delphi p ocess. The
Lance Child and Adolescen Heal h 5: 133–41. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
Hayes, And ew F. 2013. In oduc ion o Media ion, Mode a ion, and Condi ional P ocess Analysis: A Reg ession-Based App oach. New Yo k:
Guil o d.
Hess, Thomas, JoNell S ough, and Co inna Löckenho . 2015. Aging and Decision Making: Empi ical and Applied Pe spec i es. San Diego:
Academic P ess.
Highhouse, Sco , Reeshad Dalal, and Edua do Salas. 2014. In oduc ion o judgmen and decision making. In Judgmen and Decision
Making a Wo k. Edi ed by Sco Highhouse, Reeshad Dalal and Edua do Salas. New Yo k: Rou ledge, pp. 1–9.
Kahneman, Daniel. 1979. P ospec heo y: An analysis o decision unde isk. Econome ica 47: 263–91. [C ossRe ]
Kahneman, Daniel. 2003. A pe spec i e on judgmen and choice: Mapping bounded a ionali y. Ame ican Psychologis 58: 697–720.
[C ossRe ]
Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking, Fas and Slow. New Yo k: MacMillan.
Kaplan, Robe M., and Dominick L. F osch. 2005. Decision making in medicine and heal h ca e. Annual Re iew o Clinical Psychology
1: 525–56. [C ossRe ]
Ke en, Gideon, and Geo ge Wu. 2015a. A bi d’s-eye iew o he his o y o judgmen and decision making. In The Wiley Blackwell
Handbook o Judgmen and Decision Making. Edi ed by Gideon Ke en and Geo ge Wu. Malden: Wiley, pp. 1–39.
Ke en, Gideon, and Geo ge Wu. 2015b. The Wiley Blackwell Handbook o Judgmen and Decision Making. Malden: Wiley.
Koehle , De ek, and Nigel Ha ey. 2004. Blackwell Handbook o Judgmen and Decision Making. Malden: Blackwell.
Koehle , Jona han, and John Meixne . 2015. Decision making and he law: T u h ba ie s. In The Wiley Blackwell Handbook o Judgmen
and Decision Making. Edi ed by Gideon Ke en and Geo ge Wu. Malden: Wiley, pp. 749–74.
Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 162 20 o 21
Ko ia , Ashe . 2015. Me acogni ion: Decision making p ocesses in sel -moni o ing and sel - egula ion. In The Wiley Blackwell Handbook
o Judgmen and Decision Making. Edi ed by Gideon Ke en and Geo ge Wu. Malden: Wiley, pp. 356–79.
Laengle, Sigi edo, Nikunja Modak, Jose Me igo, and Gus a o Zu i a. 2018. Twen y- i e yea s o g oup decision and nego ia ion:
A bibliome ic o e iew. G oup Decision and Nego ia ion 27: 505–42. [C ossRe ]
Lausi, Giulia, Jessica Bu ai, Michela Baldi, Fabio Fe lazzo, S e ano Fe acu i, Anna Giannini, and Benede a Ba chielli. 2023. Decision-
making and abuse, wha ela ionship in ic ims o iolence? In e na ional Jou nal o En i onmen al Resea ch and Public Heal h 20:
5879. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
Len , Robe W., and S e en D. B own. 2013. Social cogni i e model o ca ee sel -managemen : Towa d a uni ying iew o adap i e
ca ee beha io ac oss he li e span. Jou nal o Counseling Psychology 60: 557–68. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
Le ne , Jenni e , Ye Li, Pie ca lo Valdesolo, and Ka im Kassam. 2015. Emo ion and decision making. Annual Re iew o Psychology
66: 799–823. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
Luce, Ma y F. 2015. Consume decision making. In The Wiley Blackwell Handbook o Judgmen and Decision Making. Edi ed by Gideon
Ke en and Geo ge Wu. Malden: Wiley, pp. 875–99.
Luck, S e en J. 2014. An In oduc ion o he E en -Rela ed Po en ial Technique. Camb idge: MIT.
Machín, Leand o, Ma ía Cu u che , Vanessa Gugliucci, Agus ina Vi ola, Tobias O e b ing, Ma cela de Alcan a a, and Gas ón A es.
2020. The habi ual na u e o ood pu chases a he supe ma ke : Implica ions o policy making. Appe i e 155: 104844. [C ossRe ]
[PubMed]
Malle, Be am F. 2021. Mo al judgmen s. Annual Re iew o Psychology 72: 293–318. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
Ma iani, Ma cello, Rod igo Pe ez-Vega, and Jochen Wi z. 2022. AI in ma ke ing, consume esea ch and psychology: A sys ema ic
li e a u e e iew and esea ch agenda. Psychology and Ma ke ing 39: 755–76. [C ossRe ]
Ma y, Lucile, Blandine de Lauzon-Guillain, Maë Labesse, and Sophie Nicklaus. 2021. Food choice mo i es and he nu i ional quali y
o die du ing he COVID-19 lockdown in F ance. Appe i e 157: 105005. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
Ma aldi, Maxime, Jasmina Malle , Ca oline Dube e , Ma ie Mo o, and Sélim Guessoum. 2021. Anxie y, dep ession, auma-
ela ed, and sleep diso de s among heal hca e wo ke s du ing he COVID-19 pandemic: A sys ema ic e iew and me a-analysis.
Neu oscience and Biobeha io al Re iews 126: 252–64. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
Mikulas, William L. 2011. Mind ulness: Signi ican common con usions. Mind ulness 2: 1–7. [C ossRe ]
Mon aze i, Ali, Sami a Mohammadi, Pa isa Hesa i, Ma jan Ghaemi, Hedyeh Riazi, and Zah a Sheikhi-MOba akeh. 2023. P elimina y
guideline o epo ing bibliome ic e iews o he biomedical li e a u e (BIBLIO): A minimum equi emen s. Sys ema ic Re iews
12: 239. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
O’Dohe y, John, Je ey Cockbu n, and Wol gang Pauli. 2017. Lea ning, ewa d, and decision making. Annual Re iew o Psychology 68:
73–100. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
Oppenheime , Daniel, and E an Kelso. 2015. In o ma ion p ocessing as a pa adigm o decision making. Annual Re iew o Psychology
66: 277–94. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
Pa en , Volke . 2022. Dys unc ional us ing and dis us ing: In eg a ing us and bias pe spec i es. Jou nal o T us Resea ch 12: 66–93.
Pennycook, Go don, Jona hon McPhe es, Yunhao Zhang, Jackson Lu, and Da id Rand. 2020. Figh ing COVID-19 misin o ma ion
on social media: Expe imen al e idence o a scalable accu acy-nudge in e en ion. Psychological Science 31: 770–80. [C ossRe ]
[PubMed]
Polich, John. 2007. Upda ing P300: An in eg a i e heo y o P3a and P3b. Clinical Neu ophysiology 118: 2128–48. [C ossRe ]
Ra cli , Roge , and Gail McKoon. 2008. The di usion decision model: Theo y and da a o wo-choice decision asks. Neu al
Compu a ion 20: 873–922. [C ossRe ]
Ra cli , Roge , and Je ey Roude . 1998. Modeling esponse imes o wo-choice decisions. Psychological Science 9: 347–56. [C ossRe ]
Ra cli , Roge , and Philip Smi h. 2004. A compa ison o sequen ial models o wo-choice eac ion ime. Psychological Re iew 111: 333–67.
[C ossRe ]
Ra cli , Roge , Philip Smi h, Sco B own, and Gail McKoon. 2016. Di usion decision model: Cu en issues and his o y. T ends in
Cogni i e Sciences 20: 260–81. [C ossRe ]
Rod igues, Leono , Manuela Calhei os, and Cíce o Pe ei a. 2021. The psychosocial p ocess unde lying esiden ial ca e placemen
decisions. In Decision-Making and Judgmen in Child Wel a e and P o ec ion. Edi ed by John Fluke, Mónica López, Rami Benbenish y,
E ik Kno h and Donald Baumann. New Yo k: Ox o d, pp. 149–72.
Ryan, Ann M., and Robe E. Ployha . 2014. A cen u y o selec ion. Annual Re iew o Psychology 65: 693–717. [C ossRe ]
San ey, Alan, and Mi e S allen. 2015. Neu osciences con ibu ion o judgmen and decision making: Oppo uni ies and limi a ions. In
The Wiley Blackwell Handbook o Judgmen and Decision Making. Edi ed by Gideon Ke en and Geo ge Wu. Malden: Wiley, pp. 268–94.
San os, Lau ie R., and Alexand a G. Rosa i. 2015. The e olu iona y oo s o human decision making. Annual Re iew o Psychology 66:
321–47. [C ossRe ]
Sco , Susanne G., and Reginald A. B uce. 1995. Decision-making s yle: The de elopmen and assessmen o a new measu e. Educa ional
and Psychological Measu emen 55: 818–31. [C ossRe ]
Shaddy, F anklin, Ayele Fishbach, and I ama Simonson. 2021. T ade-o s in choice. Annual Re iew o Psychology 72: 181–206. [C ossRe ]
[PubMed]
S i as a a, P a een, Dhee aj Sha ma, Inde jee Kau , and Kushall Singh. 2021. Decision: A bibliome ic o e iew since i s ounding.
Decision 8: 69–79. [C ossRe ]
Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 162 21 o 21
S anziani, Ma issa, Jenni e Cox, and Adam Co ey. 2018. Adding insul o inju y: Sex, sexual o ien a ion, and ju o decision-making in
a case o in ima e pa ne iolence. Jou nal o Homosexuali y 65: 1325–50. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
S asse , Ga old, and Susanne Abele. 2020. Collec i e choice, collabo a ion, and communica ion. Annual Re iew o Psychology 71: 589–612.
[C ossRe ]
S iggelbou , Anne M., A wen H. Pie e se, and Johanna C. J. M. de Haes. 2015. Sha ed decision making: Concep s, e idence, and
p ac ice. Pa ien Educa ion and Counseling 98: 1172–79. [C ossRe ]
S one , James A. F. 1968. Risky and cau ious shi s in g oup decisions: The in luence o widely held alues. Jou nal o Expe imen al Social
Psychology 4: 442–59. [C ossRe ]
Summe ield, Ch is ophe , and Paula Pa pa . 2022. No ma i e p inciples o decision-making in na u al en i onmen s. Annual Re iew
o Psychology 73: 53–77. [C ossRe ]
Tapp, Diane, and Ma ie-Claude Blais. 2019. E alua ion o decision suppo ools o pa ien s wi h ad anced cance : A sys ema ic
e iew o li e a u e. Pallia i e and Suppo i e Ca e 17: 356–64. [C ossRe ]
Temple, No man J. 2020. F on -o -package ood labels: A na a i e e iew. Appe i e 144: 104485. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
T e iño, Linda K., Niki A. Nieuwenboe , and Jenni e J. Kish-Gepha . 2014. (Un) e hical beha io in o ganiza ions. Annual Re iew o
Psychology 65: 635–60. [C ossRe ]
T i edi-Ba eman, Neema. 2021. The combined oles o mo al emo ion and mo al ules in explaining ac s o iolence using a si ua ional
ac ion heo y pe spec i e. Jou nal o In e pe sonal Violence 36: 8715–40. [C ossRe ]
T e sky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. 1974. Judgmen unde unce ain y: Heu is ics and biases. Science 185: 1124–31. [C ossRe ]
T e sky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. 1981. The aming o decisions and he psychology o choice. Science 211: 453–58. [C ossRe ]
[PubMed]
U minsky, Oleg, and Gal Zaube man. 2015. The psychology o empo al p e e ences. In The Wiley Blackwell Handbook o Judgmen and
Decision Making. Edi ed by Gideon Ke en and Geo ge Wu. Malden: Wiley, pp. 141–81.
Van Ba el, Jay, Ka he ine Baicke , Paulo Boggio, Vale io Cap a o, Aleksand a Cichocka, Mina Cika a, Molly C ocke , Alia C um,
Ka en Douglas, James N. D uckman, and e al. 2020. Using social and beha iou al science o suppo COVID-19 pandemic
esponse. Na u e Human Beha iou 4: 460–41. [C ossRe ]
Van Dijk, E ic, and Ca s en de D eu. 2021. Expe imen al games and social decision making. Annual Re iew o Psychology 72: 415–38.
[C ossRe ] [PubMed]
Vilhelmsson, And eas, Ani a San ’Anna, and Axel Wol . 2021. Nudging heal hca e p o essionals o imp o e ea men o COVID-19:
A na a i e e iew. BMJ Open Quali y 10: e001522. [C ossRe ] [PubMed]
Wang, Mo, and Junqi Shi. 2014. Psychological esea ch on e i emen . Annual Re iew o Psychology 65: 209–33. [C ossRe ]
Weiss, Da id, and James Shan eau. 2021. The u ili y o decision making esea ch. S udies in His o y and Philosophy o Science 90: 10–14.
[C ossRe ]
Zupic, I an, and Tomaž ˇ
Ca e . 2015. Bibliome ic me hods in managemen and o ganiza ion. O ganiza ional Resea ch Me hods 18: 429–72.
[C ossRe ]
Disclaime /Publishe ’s No e: The s a emen s, opinions and da a con ained in all publica ions a e solely hose o he indi idual
au ho (s) and con ibu o (s) and no o MDPI and/o he edi o (s). MDPI and/o he edi o (s) disclaim esponsibili y o any inju y o
people o p ope y esul ing om any ideas, me hods, ins uc ions o p oduc s e e ed o in he con en .
