IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceco/v65y2016icp9-15.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Confirmation: What's in the evidence?

Author

Listed:
  • Kataria, Mitesh

Abstract

The difference between accommodated evidence (i.e., when evidence is known first and then a hypothesis is proposed to explain and fit the observations) and predicted evidence (i.e., when evidence verifies the prediction of a hypothesis formulated before observing the evidence) is investigated in this article. According to the purely logical approach of Bayesian confirmation theory, accommodated and predicted evidence constitute equally strong confirmation. Using a survey experiment on a sample of students, however, it is shown that predicted evidence is perceived to constitute stronger confirmation than accommodated evidence. The results show that predictions work as a signal about the scientists’ (the proposer of the hypothesis) knowledge which in turn provides stronger confirmation.

Suggested Citation

  • Kataria, Mitesh, 2016. "Confirmation: What's in the evidence?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 9-15.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:65:y:2016:i:c:p:9-15
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2016.09.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804316301070
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socec.2016.09.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    2. Williamson, Jon, 2015. "Deliberation, Judgement And The Nature Of Evidence," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 31(1), pages 27-65, March.
    3. Kahn, James A. & Landsburg, Steven E. & Stockman, Alan C., 1996. "The Positive Economics of Methodology," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 64-76, January.
    4. Halbert White, 2000. "A Reality Check for Data Snooping," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(5), pages 1097-1126, September.
    5. Leamer, Edward E, 1983. "Let's Take the Con Out of Econometrics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(1), pages 31-43, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christoph Engel, 2006. "The Difficult Reception of Rigorous Descriptive Social Science in the Law," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2006_1, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    2. Castle Jennifer L. & Doornik Jurgen A & Hendry David F., 2011. "Evaluating Automatic Model Selection," Journal of Time Series Econometrics, De Gruyter, vol. 3(1), pages 1-33, February.
    3. Heath, Davidson & Ringgenberg, Matthew C. & Samadi, Mehrdad & Werner, Ingrid M., 2019. "Reusing Natural Experiments," Working Paper Series 2019-21, Ohio State University, Charles A. Dice Center for Research in Financial Economics.
    4. Bogliacino, Francesco & Codagnone, Cristiano, 2021. "Microfoundations, behaviour, and evolution: Evidence from experiments," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 372-385.
    5. Sullivan, Ryan & Timmermann, Allan & White, Halbert, 2001. "Dangers of data mining: The case of calendar effects in stock returns," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 249-286, November.
    6. Timothy B Armstrong & Michal Kolesár, 2018. "A Simple Adjustment for Bandwidth Snooping," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 85(2), pages 732-765.
    7. Castle, Jennifer L. & Doornik, Jurgen A. & Hendry, David F., 2012. "Model selection when there are multiple breaks," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 169(2), pages 239-246.
    8. Joseph P. Romano & Michael Wolf, 2005. "Stepwise Multiple Testing as Formalized Data Snooping," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(4), pages 1237-1282, July.
    9. Peter Sandholt Jensen & Allan H. Würtz, 2006. "On determining the importance of a regressor with small and undersized samples," Economics Working Papers 2006-08, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University.
    10. Yang, Junmin & Cao, Zhiguang & Han, Qiheng & Wang, Qiyu, 2019. "Tactical asset allocation on technical trading rules and data snooping," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    11. Hsu, Po-Hsuan & Taylor, Mark P. & Wang, Zigan, 2016. "Technical trading: Is it still beating the foreign exchange market?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 188-208.
    12. Yang, Haisheng & He, Jie & Chen, Shaoling, 2015. "The fragility of the Environmental Kuznets Curve: Revisiting the hypothesis with Chinese data via an “Extreme Bound Analysis”," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 41-58.
    13. Cho, Seo-young & Vadlamannati, Krishna Chaitanya, 2010. "Compliance for big brothers: An empirical analysis on the impact of the anti-trafficking protocol," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 118, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    14. Ederer, Florian & Stremitzer, Alexander, 2017. "Promises and expectations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 161-178.
    15. Agnes Bäker & Werner Güth & Kerstin Pull & Manfred Stadler, 2012. "On the Context-Dependency of Inequality Aversion - Experimental Evidence and a Stylized Model -," Jena Economics Research Papers 2012-023, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    16. Claudia M. Landeo & Kathryn E. Spier, 2016. "Stipulated Damages as a Rent-Extraction Mechanism: Experimental Evidence," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 172(2), pages 235-273, June.
    17. Mengyuan Zhou, 2022. "Does the Source of Inheritance Matter in Bequest Attitudes? Evidence from Japan," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 867-887, December.
    18. Andrew Patton, 2002. "(IAM Series No 001) On the Out-Of-Sample Importance of Skewness and Asymetric Dependence for Asset Allocation," FMG Discussion Papers dp431, Financial Markets Group.
    19. Engelhardt, Sebastian v. & Freytag, Andreas, 2013. "Institutions, culture, and open source," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 90-110.
    20. Ho, Ron Yiu-wah & Strange, Roger & Piesse, Jenifer, 2006. "On the conditional pricing effects of beta, size, and book-to-market equity in the Hong Kong market," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 199-214, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Subjective beliefs; Evidence; Prediction; Postdiction; Retrodiction;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C11 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Bayesian Analysis: General
    • C12 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Hypothesis Testing: General
    • C80 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - General

    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:eee:soceco:v:65:y:2016:i:c:p:9-15. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620175 .

    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.