IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v10y2015i3p280-283_8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Judging competing theoretical accounts by their empirical content and parsimony: Reply to Myrseth and Wollbrant (2015)

Author

Listed:
  • Kieslich, Pascal J.
  • Hilbig, Benjamin E.

Abstract

Myrseth and Wollbrant (2015) offer an alternative theoretical explanation for our finding that defection entails more cognitive conflict than cooperation (Kieslich & Hilbig, 2014). Although we completely agree that different theoretical explanations for a result are possible, we maintain that the theoretical approach we tested (Rand et al., 2014) is parsimonious and falsifiable, excluding certain plausible results a priori. By comparison, the alternative framework proposed by Myrseth and Wollbrant requires several debatable assumptions to account for our findings, rendering it the more complex theory. Besides, their framework as a whole could have accounted for any possible finding in our experiment, making it impossible to falsify it with our data. We thus conclude that the notion by Rand et al.—that there is a spontaneous disposition to cooperate—has more empirical content while requiring fewer assumptions.

Suggested Citation

  • Kieslich, Pascal J. & Hilbig, Benjamin E., 2015. "Judging competing theoretical accounts by their empirical content and parsimony: Reply to Myrseth and Wollbrant (2015)," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(3), pages 280-283, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:3:p:280-283_8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S193029750000468X/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:3:p:280-283_8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.