Assessment title Assignment 1
Individual/group assessment Individual
Return and status of marked assessments: Within 4 weeks from the date of submission as per UCL guidelines. The
module team will update you if there are delays through unforeseen circumstances (e.g. ill health). All results when
first published are provisional until confirmed by the Examination Board.
Copyright Note to students: Copyright of this assessment brief is with the module leader(s) named above. If this
brief draws upon work by third parties (e.g. Case Study publishers) such third parties also hold copyright. It must not
be copied, reproduced, transferred, distributed, leased, licensed or shared any other individual(s) and/or
organisations, including web-based organisations, without permission of the copyright holder(s).
Academic Misconduct: Academic Misconduct is defined as any action or attempted action that may result in a
student obtaining an unfair academic advantage. Academic misconduct includes plagiarism, obtaining help
from/sharing work with others be they individuals and/or organisations or any other form of cheating. Refer to
Academic Manual Section 9: Student Academic Misconduct Procedure – 9.2 Definitions.
Referencing: You must reference and provide full citation for ALL sources used, including articles, text books, lecture
slides and module materials. This includes any direct quotes and paraphrased text. If in doubt, reference it. If you
need further guidance on referencing please see UCL’s referencing tutorial for students here: https://libraryguides.ucl.ac.uk/referencing-plagiarism/welcome. Failure to cite references correctly may result in your work being
referred to the Academic Misconduct Panel.
Content of this assessment brief
Section Content
A Core information
B Coursework brief and requirements
C Module learning outcomes covered in this assessment
D Groupwork instructions (if applicable)
E How your work is assessed
F Additional information
Page 2 of 11
Section A: Core information
Submission date 02/11/2021
Submission time 12:00PM
Assessment is marked out of: 100
% weighting of this assessment
within total module mark
25%
Maximum word count/page
length/duration
1000 words +/- 10% (i.e. 900-1100 words)
Footnotes, appendices, tables,
figures, diagrams, charts included
in/excluded from word count/page
length?
included in word count
Bibliographies, reference lists
included in/excluded from word
count/page length?
excluded from word count
Penalty for exceeding word
count/page length
10 percentage points deduction, capped at 40% for Levels 4,5, 6,
and 50% for Level 7. Refer to Academic Manual Section 3:

submission link located within this module’s Moodle
‘Submissions’ tab by the specified deadline.
Anonymity of identity. Normally, all
submissions are anonymous unless
the nature of the submission is such
that anonymity is not appropriate,
illustratively as in presentations or
where minutes of group meetings
are required as part of a group work
submission
The nature of this assessment is such that anonymity is required.
Page 3 of 11
Section B: Assessment Brief and Requirements
Imagine you are a manager hiring a new employee. Pick four biases (from the following: ease of
recall, retrievability, insensitivity to base rates, insensitivity to sample size, misconception of
chance, regression to the mean, confirmation trap, anchoring, overprecision, overplacement,
overestimation, curse of knowledge/hindsight) and explain how they are likely to influence you at
any stage of the hiring process (e.g. looking at resumes, in-person interview). What steps should
you take to avoid these biases? Make sure to also define the biases in your own words and
mention what heuristic they fall under. Citing definitions and all ideas that are not your own is
paramount.
A few notes:
1. I recommend the following structure (also look at the rubric posted on Moodle for
additional information):
a. You write four paragraphs, each paragraph deals with one bias
i. You define the bias, say which heuristic it falls under, and cite the
person who discovered the bias.
ii. Using a specific example, you write about how the bias could affect
you (if you were the manager) during one stage of the hiring process.
iii. You write about how you could avoid falling prey to the bias by
applying one of the avoidance tactics (see lecture slides and chapter
11 in Bazerman & Moore to be found as pdf on the Moodle Home
tab for MSIN0031) or by proposing a new avoidance tactic.
2. You can write in the first or third person. Since you are the manager in this scenario,
it makes a lot of sense to write in the first person. Nevertheless, it is up to you.
3. You can pick different stages of the hiring process for different biases. In other
words, bias 1 can be applied to one stage of the hiring process and bias 2 can be
applied to a different stage of the hiring process etc. You can also apply all four
biases to the same stage. This is up to you.
4. It is very important to cite the appropriate academic literature whenever you define
a concept or write about an idea that you discovered in someone else’s writing.
Many citations can be found in Bazerman & Moore chapter 2 on Moodle (Session
2). I have also made an older version of the entire Bazerman & Moore book
available on Moodle. You can find the references at the very end of the book. It
doesn’t matter which referencing style you use, but it is important to stick to one
style throughout.
Example: “The confirmation trap, belonging to the confirmation heuristic, is defined
as people’s tendency to search for information that confirms their prior believes
and to neglect to search for information that disconfirms their prior believes
(Wason, 1960).“ In the reference section at the end you would put the following:
Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual
task. Quarterly journal of experimental psychology, 12(3), 129-140.
Wason was the person who discovered the confirmation trap and published an
article about it. That is why he should be cited. Fun fact: Wason was a professor
here at UCL.
It is inappropriate to cite blogs and websites as anyone can create them and we
cannot necessarily believe what they write. Most journal articles, on the other hand,
are peer reviewed, which indicates that there has been a quality check on the
research conducted. You can easily find journal articles on Google Scholar, which
Page 4 of 11
also provides the references in a number of different styles for you by clicking on
the “.
5. The definitions of most of the biases we have covered can be found on page 41 of
Chapter 2 in Bazerman and Moore. Please do not simply copy these but put them
into your own words.
Page 5 of 11
Section C: Module Learning Outcomes covered in this
Assessment
This assessment contributes towards the achievement of the following stated module Learning
Outcomes as highlighted below:
This assignment contributes towards the achievement of the following stated module
Learning Outcomes as highlighted below:
x Be able to name and define the common heuristics and biases that people fall prey to
when making decisions.
x Understand how to avoid decision traps (heuristics/biases) and thus become a better
decision maker.
x Ability to define and use psychological concepts appropriately
x Concise and precise articulation of ideas
x Application of theoretical constructs to real life phenomena
x Creative problem solving
Page 6 of 11
Section D: Groupwork Instructions (where
relevant/appropriate)
Not applicable.
Page 7 of 11
Section E: How your work is assessed
Within each section of this assessment you may be assessed on the following aspects, as applicable and
appropriate to this assessment, and should thus consider these aspects when fulfilling the requirements of
each section:
x The accuracy of any calculations required.
x The strengths and quality of your overall analysis and evaluation;
x Appropriate use of relevant theoretical models, concepts and frameworks;
x The rationale and evidence that you provide in support of your arguments;
x The credibility and viability of the evidenced conclusions/recommendations/plans of action
you put forward;
x Structure and coherence of your considerations and reports;
x Appropriate and relevant use of, as and where relevant and appropriate, real world examples,
academic materials and referenced sources. Any references should use either the Harvard OR
Vancouver referencing system (see References, Citations and Avoiding Plagiarism)
x Academic judgement regarding the blend of scope, thrust and communication of ideas,
contentions, evidence, knowledge, arguments, conclusions.
x Each assessment requirement(s) has allocated marks/weightings.
Student submissions are reviewed/scrutinised by and internal assessor and are available to an External
Examiner for further review/scrutiny before consideration by the relevant Examination Board.
It is not uncommon for some students to feel that their submissions deserve higher marks (irrespective of
whether they actually deserve higher marks). To help you assess the relative strengths and weaknesses of
your submission please refer to UCL Assessment Criteria Guidelines, located at
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/sites/teaching-learning/files/migratedfiles/UCL_Assessment_Criteria_Guide.pdf
The above is an important link as it specifies the criteria for attaining 85% +, 70% to 84%, 60% to 69%, 50%
to 59%, 40% to 49%, below 40%.
You are strongly advised to not compare your mark with marks of other submissions from your student
colleagues. Each submission has its own range of characteristics which differ from others in terms of
breadth, scope, depth, insights, and subtleties and nuances. On the surface one submission may appear to
be similar to another but invariably, digging beneath the surface reveals a range of differing
characteristics.

Page 8 of 11
Section F: Additional information from module leader
(as appropriate)
No marks (0) Very poor
20%
Poor 40% Needs more
work 45%
Satisfactory
50%
Very
Satisfactory
55%
Applicatio
n of biases
to
employee
hiring
40%
Either
required
content is
missing or
zero has been
awarded for
examination
irregularity(ies
)
The
application
of the biases
to the hiring
process, in all
respects,
does not
meet the
requirement
s of the brief.
Biases are
not defined
and not
applied to
the hiring
process.
The
requirement
s of the brief
have largely
been
missed. Too
few biases
have been
applied (and
ill or not all
defined) or
the
application
does not
make sense
in relation to
the hiring
process.
The biases are
ill defined and
applied in only
a couple of
cases. There
are a
considerable
number of
errors and
inconsistencie
s.
The biases are
applied to a
limited extent.
Application
should be
clearer and
the biases
could be
better defined.
The definition
and
application of
the biases
generally have
a clear
structure,
although they
would benefit
from further
development.
Some errors
and
inconsistencie
s.
Quite good
60%
Good 65% Very good
70%
Excellent
75%
Outstanding
80%-89%
Publishable
standard
90%-100%
The definition
and
application of
the biases
generally have
a clear
structure.
Some minor
errors and
inconsistencie
s in places.
Good solid
work.
Demonstrate
s effort to
provide
proper
definitions
and
application
of the biases
to the hiring
process
make sense.
Meets all of
the criteria
at the basic
level.
Proper
definitions
of all biases.
Very good
application
of the biases
to the hiring
process.
Meets all of
the criteria
at an
advanced
level.
Exemplary
definitions of
biases and
exemplary
application of
the biases to
the hiring
process. No
errors or
inconsistencie
s.
Outstanding
quality of
definitions.
Shows
creativity in
the application
of the biases
to the hiring
process. No
errors or
inconsistencie
s.
Industry and
research could
learn from this
creative way
of applying
biases in the
hiring process.
No errors or
inconsistencie
s.
Page 9 of 11
No marks (0) Very poor
20%
Poor 40% Needs more
work 45%
Satisfactory
50%
Very
Satisfactory
55%
Description
and
explanation
of how to
avoid the
biases
chosen
40%
Either required
content is
missing or zero
has been
awarded for
examination
irregularity(ies)
Either no
avoidance
tactics are
presented
or the
avoidance
tactics
offered are
not directly
linked to
the biases
mentioned
in the
paper.
Generally
the
avoidance
tactics are
quite vague
or not
applicable
and would
not provide
sufficient
guidance on
how to
implement
them.
Some effort to
link avoidance
tactics
discussed in
lecture to the
biases. There
are a
considerable
number of
errors and
inconsistencies.
A fair effort,
but the
avoidance
tactics need
to be much
more clearly
linked to the
biases.
A fair start
on linking
the
avoidance
tactics,
although
some
aspects need
to be
developed
further to
ensure
clearer
guides on
how to avoid
biases.
Quite good
60%
Good 65% Very good
70%
Excellent
75%
Outstanding
80%-89%
Publishable
standard
90%-100%
The avoidance
tactics are
generally linked
to the biases,
although clarity
of the link and
scope could be
improved in
places.
Avoidance
tactics are
generally,
clearly
linked to
biases.
Some
elements
could be
fine-tuned
further, but
overall
good, solid
work.
Very good
linking of
avoidance
tactics to
the biases.
Avoidance
tactics will
be very
effective.
Excellent
capture of the
link between
avoidance
tactics
proposed for
each bias and
relevant,
realistic success
criteria (i.e. how
would you
know that the
avoidance tactic
has worked?).
Outstanding
avoidance
tactics
(including
some original
ones) that are
exceptionally
well linked to
the biases
and relevant,
realistic
success
criteria (see
description
on left).
These
creative
avoidance
tactics could
inform
industry
practice and
are worthy
of research
pursuit to
test their
viability.
Page 10 of 11
No marks (0) Very poor
20%
Poor 40% Needs more
work 45%
Satisfactory
50%
Very
Satisfactory
55%
Scholarly
Practice
20%
Core text =
Bazerman
and Moore
Chapters 3
and 11
Either required
content is
missing or zero
has been
awarded for
examination
irregularity(ies)
No evidence
of reading.
Views are
unsupported
and nonauthoritative.
Academic
conventions
largely
ignored.
Evidence of
little reading
appropriate
for the level
of study,
and/or
indiscriminate
use of
sources.
Academic
conventions
used weakly.
Some
evidence of
reading, with
superficial
linking to
given texts.
Some
academic
conventions
evident, but
inconsistent,
with major
weaknesses.
Fair
knowledge of
core texts.
Literature
used, but
descriptively.
Academic
skills mixed.
Good
knowledge of
core texts.
Literature
used well,
but
descriptively.
Academic
skills mixed
to good.
Quite good
60%
Good 65% Very good
70%
Excellent
75%
Outstanding
80%-89%
Publishable
standard
90%-100%
Good
knowledge of
literature
beyond core
texts. Some
application of
literature
rather than
just
descriptive.
Good use of
academic
conventions,
with room for
improvement.
Knowledge
of the field of
literature
appropriately
used to
support
views.
Researchinformed
literature
integrated
into the
work. Good
use of
academic
conventions.
Very good
knowledge of
the field of
literature
appropriately
used to
support
views.
Researchinformed
literature
very well
integrated
into the work.
Very good
use of
academic
conventions.
Excellent
knowledge of
the field of
literature
appropriately
used to
support
views.
Researchinformed
literature
exceptionally
well
integrated
into the
work.
Excellent use
of academic
conventions.
Critical
engagement
with
appropriate
reading.
Knowledge
or researchinformed
literature
embedded in
the work.
Consistently
accurate use
of academic
conventions.
Exceptionally
wide range
of relevant
literature
used
critically to
inform
argument,
balance
discussion
and/or
inform
problemsolving.
Consistently
accurate use
of academic
conventions.