Information Package / Course Catalogue
| Law | |||||
| Bachelor | Length of the Programme: 4 | Number of Credits: 240 | TR-NQF-HE: Level 6 | QF-EHEA: First Cycle | EQF: Level 6 |
Ders Genel Tanıtım Bilgileri
| School/Faculty/Institute | Faculty of Law | ||||
| Course Code | LAW 225 | ||||
| Course Title in English | Decision-making: Legal and Psychological Perspectives | ||||
| Course Title in Turkish | Karar Verme: Hukuki ve Psikolojik Perspektifler | ||||
| Language of Instruction | EN | ||||
| Type of Course | Lecture | ||||
| Level of Course | Intermediate | ||||
| Semester | Spring | ||||
| Contact Hours per Week |
|
||||
| Estimated Student Workload | 96 hours per semester | ||||
| Number of Credits | 4 ECTS | ||||
| Grading Mode | Standard Letter Grade | ||||
| Pre-requisites | None | ||||
| Expected Prior Knowledge | None | ||||
| Co-requisites | None | ||||
| Registration Restrictions | Only Undergraduate Students | ||||
| Overall Educational Objective | To learn how legal parties determine causation, assign blame, and make agreements and to identify areas of irrationality and challenge the ingrained assumptions and biases regarding human nature. | ||||
| Course Description | The course aims to provide the students with a basic knowledge to incorporate psychological approaches in examining legal processes of decision-making. The course will firstly present why traditional economic or legal analyses do not account for decisional biases. The course will subsequently examine how empirical psychological research can help people frame our arguments in a manner to avoid claims that prompt logical biases in others. Then, the course will enable the students to identify the weak points in their legal arguments and decision-making processes by theoretically examining the links between who we are and how we decide and how we present our legal arguments. | ||||
| Course Description in Turkish | Bu ders öğrencilere hukuki süreçlerde etkin olan karar proseslerindeki psikolojik yaklaşımlara dair temel bir bilgi vermeyi amaçlar. Ders öncelikle, neden tradisyonel hukuki veya ekonomik yaklaşımlarım bu düşünsel önyaryargıları zaman zaman göz önünde bulunduramadığını gösterecektir. Ders daha sonra kendi argümanlarımızın başkalarında irrasyonel noktaları tetiklemesini nasıl törpüleyebileceğimizi inceleyecek, son olarak ta öğrencilerin kim oldukları, karar verme mekanizmaları, ve kurdukları argümanlar arasındaki bağlantıları çözümlemelerine yardımcı olacaktır. |
Course Learning Outcomes and CompetencesUpon successful completion of the course, the learner is expected to be able to:1) Understand the basic dynamics of legal decision-making 2) Closely familiarize himself/herself with his/her decision-making processes 3) Evaluate the psychological impact of legal arguments 4) Explore the links and differences between the psychological and legal implications of blame and causation 5) Effectively employ psychological concepts to empower his/her legal arguments |
| Program Learning Outcomes/Course Learning Outcomes | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1) The ability to recognize and apply basic principles and theories of law, legal methodology, and interpretation methods. | |||||
| 2) The ability to follow, evaluate, interpret and apply the current developments and legislative amendments. | |||||
| 3) The ability to locate and use legal resources; to follow and evaluate current legislative amendments, legal science, and court decisions. | |||||
| 4) The ability to internalize social, scientific and ethical values while evaluating legal information. | |||||
| 5) The ability to recognize, examine and resolve legal issues with respect to general principles of law, de lege feranda and de lege lata; to take into consideration both national and international aspects of law; and to acknowledge the importance of personal conviction while making decisions. | |||||
| 6) The ability to critically analyze legal disputes, legislation, court decisions and different views in the legal science; to form his/her own opinions; to detect legal lacuna and suggest alternative solutions. | |||||
| 7) The ability to understand issues regarding different fields of law; to characterize and propose solutions to complex issues arising from legal practice. | |||||
| 8) The ability to participate in and organize legal projects and activities as a socially responsible individual; to put his/her legal knowledge and skill to use efficiently (in the public or private sector). | |||||
| 9) The ability to use a foreign language at least on a B2 Level on the European Language Portfolio, to follow legal developments and communicate with colleagues in that language; to use computer software and information and communication technologies necessary in the law field at an Advanced Level of the European Computer Driving License. | |||||
| 10) Adoption of a positive approach to the concept of lifelong learning. | |||||
| 11) The ability to understand the development, evolution, and problems of the society and to contribute to the solution of these problems by legal methods. | |||||
| 12) The ability to understand the structure, organization, and functioning of law on the national and international level; to contribute to the development thereof. |
Relation to Program Outcomes and Competences
| N None | S Supportive | H Highly Related |
| Program Outcomes and Competences | Level | Assessed by | |
| 1) | The ability to recognize and apply basic principles and theories of law, legal methodology, and interpretation methods. | S | Exam |
| 2) | The ability to follow, evaluate, interpret and apply the current developments and legislative amendments. | S | Exam |
| 3) | The ability to locate and use legal resources; to follow and evaluate current legislative amendments, legal science, and court decisions. | S | Exam |
| 4) | The ability to internalize social, scientific and ethical values while evaluating legal information. | H | Exam |
| 5) | The ability to recognize, examine and resolve legal issues with respect to general principles of law, de lege feranda and de lege lata; to take into consideration both national and international aspects of law; and to acknowledge the importance of personal conviction while making decisions. | H | Exam |
| 6) | The ability to critically analyze legal disputes, legislation, court decisions and different views in the legal science; to form his/her own opinions; to detect legal lacuna and suggest alternative solutions. | H | Exam |
| 7) | The ability to understand issues regarding different fields of law; to characterize and propose solutions to complex issues arising from legal practice. | H | Exam |
| 8) | The ability to participate in and organize legal projects and activities as a socially responsible individual; to put his/her legal knowledge and skill to use efficiently (in the public or private sector). | H | Exam |
| 9) | The ability to use a foreign language at least on a B2 Level on the European Language Portfolio, to follow legal developments and communicate with colleagues in that language; to use computer software and information and communication technologies necessary in the law field at an Advanced Level of the European Computer Driving License. | H | Exam |
| 10) | Adoption of a positive approach to the concept of lifelong learning. | H | Exam |
| 11) | The ability to understand the development, evolution, and problems of the society and to contribute to the solution of these problems by legal methods. | S | Exam |
| 12) | The ability to understand the structure, organization, and functioning of law on the national and international level; to contribute to the development thereof. | S | Exam |
| Prepared by and Date | SENEM TANBERK HAZNEDAROĞLU , January 2024 |
| Course Coordinator | SENEM TANBERK HAZNEDAROĞLU |
| Semester | Spring |
| Name of Instructor | Öğr. Gör. SENEM TANBERK HAZNEDAROĞLU |
Course Contents
| Week | Subject |
| 1) | The Omission and Normality Biases |
| 2) | Fast and Slow Thinking |
| 3) | Loss Aversion |
| 4) | Fallacies |
| 5) | The Status Quo Bias |
| 6) | Social Proof Systems and Conformism |
| 7) | Psychological Foundations of Legal Conservatism |
| 8) | Regret Theory |
| 9) | Attribution Theory |
| 10) | Difficult Agreements/ Difficult Conversations |
| 11) | Normal and Abnormal Definitions and Matters |
| 12) | Getting Past No |
| 13) | Assumption Check |
| 14) | Anchoring |
| 15) | Endowment Effect |
| 16) | Final Examination Period |
| Required/Recommended Readings | Thinking Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman (2011), Farrar, Straus, and Giroux Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases Amos Tversky; Daniel Kahneman Science, New Series, Vol. 185, No. 4157. (Sep. 27, 1974), pp. 1124-1131. Difficult Conversations. Bruce Patton, Douglas Stone, and Sheila Heen. Harvard Negotiation Project (1999) | ||||||||||||
| Teaching Methods | Lecture | ||||||||||||
| Homework and Projects | |||||||||||||
| Laboratory Work | |||||||||||||
| Computer Use | |||||||||||||
| Other Activities | |||||||||||||
| Assessment Methods |
|
||||||||||||
| Course Administration |
haznerdaroglus@mef.edu.tr Attendance rules: Attendance list only for exams Missing exam: Make-up exam when medical report was submitted Plagiarism: Failing exam with 0 points + notification of the dean and rector |
||||||||||||
ECTS Student Workload Estimation
| Activity | No/Weeks | Hours | Calculation | ||||
| No/Weeks per Semester | Preparing for the Activity | Spent in the Activity Itself | Completing the Activity Requirements | ||||
| Course Hours | 14 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 70 | ||
| Midterm(s) | 1 | 8 | 2 | 10 | |||
| Final Examination | 1 | 14 | 2 | 16 | |||
| Total Workload | 96 | ||||||
| Total Workload/25 | 3.8 | ||||||
| ECTS | 4 | ||||||