IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Size matters: the standard error of regressions in the American Economic Review

Listed author(s):
  • Ziliak, Stephen T.
  • McCloskey, Deirdre N.

Significance testing as used has no theoretical justification. Our article in the Journal of Economic Literature (1996) showed that of the 182 full-length papers published in the 1980s in the American Economic Review 70% did not distinguish economic from statistical significance. Since 1996 many colleagues have told us that practice has improved. We interpret their response as an empirical claim, a judgment about a fact. Our colleagues, unhappily, are mistaken: significance testing is getting worse. We find here that in the next decade, the 1990s, of the 137 papers using a test of statistical significance in the AER fully 82% mistook a merely statistically significant finding for an economically significant finding. A super majority (81%) believed that looking at the sign of a coefficient sufficed for science, ignoring size. The mistake is causing economic damage: losses of jobs and justice, and indeed of human lives (especially in, to mention another field enchanted with statistical significance as against substantive significance, medical science). The confusion between fit and importance is causing false hypotheses to be accepted and true hypotheses to be rejected. We propose a publication standard for the future: “Tell me the oomph of your coefficient; and do not confuse it with merely statistical significance.â€

(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6W5H-4DS706V-9/2/26be7452018340175c9a0b3436ece565
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics).

Volume (Year): 33 (2004)
Issue (Month): 5 (November)
Pages: 527-546

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:33:y:2004:i:5:p:527-546
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620175

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as
in new window


  1. Deirdre N. McCloskey & Stephen T. Ziliak, 1996. "The Standard Error of Regressions," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 34(1), pages 97-114, March.
  2. David Card & Alan B. Krueger, 1993. "Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the Fast Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania," NBER Working Papers 4509, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  3. Keuzenkamp, H.A. & Magnus, J.R., 1995. "On tests and significance in econometrics," Other publications TiSEM 1808e2e0-3805-4999-b9a1-5, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
  4. Bernanke, Ben S & Blinder, Alan S, 1992. "The Federal Funds Rate and the Channels of Monetary Transmission," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(4), pages 901-921, September.
  5. Angrist, Joshua D, 1995. "The Economic Returns to Schooling in the West Bank and Gaza Strip," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1065-1087, December.
  6. McCloskey, Donald N, 1985. "The Loss Function Has Been Mislaid: The Rhetoric of Significance Tests," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(2), pages 201-205, May.
  7. Gary S. Becker & Michael Grossman & Kevin M. Murphy, 1990. "An Empirical Analysis of Cigarette Addiction," University of Chicago - George G. Stigler Center for Study of Economy and State 61, Chicago - Center for Study of Economy and State.
  8. Keuzenkamp, Hugo A. & Magnus, Jan R., 1995. "On tests and significance in econometrics," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 5-24, May.
  9. David Colander, 2000. "New Millennium Economics: How Did It Get This Way, and What Way Is It?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(1), pages 121-132, Winter.
  10. Bernheim, B Douglas & Wantz, Adam, 1995. "A Tax-Based Test of the Dividend Signaling Hypothesis," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(3), pages 532-551, June.
  11. Keuzenkamp,Hugo A., 2000. "Probability, Econometrics and Truth," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521553599, December.
  12. Darnell, A C, 1997. "Imprecise Tests and Imprecise Hypotheses," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 44(3), pages 247-268, August.
  13. Daniel S. Hamermesh, 1999. "The Art of Labormetrics," NBER Working Papers 6927, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  14. Solon, Gary, 1992. "Intergenerational Income Mobility in the United States," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(3), pages 393-408, June.
  15. Hendricks, Kenneth & Porter, Robert H, 1996. "The Timing and Incidence of Exploratory Drilling on Offshore Wildcat Tracts," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 388-407, June.
  16. Zimmerman, David J, 1992. "Regression toward Mediocrity in Economic Stature," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(3), pages 409-429, June.
  17. Kachelmeier, Steven J & Shehata, Mohamed, 1992. "Examining Risk Preferences under High Monetary Incentives: Experimental Evidence from the People's Republic of China," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(5), pages 1120-1141, December.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:33:y:2004:i:5:p:527-546. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

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.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.