The Empirical content of theories in judgment and decision making: Shortcomings and remedies
According to Karl Popper, we can tell good theories from poor ones by assessing their empirical content (empirischer Gehalt), which basically reflects how much information they convey concerning the world. ``The empirical content of a statement increases with its degree of falsifiability: the more a statement forbids, the more it says about the world of experience.'' Two criteria to evaluate the empirical content of a theory are their level of universality (Allgemeinheit) and their degree of precision (Bestimmtheit). The former specifies how many situations it can be applied to. The latter refers to the specificity in prediction, that is, how many subclasses of realizations it allows. We conduct an analysis of the empirical content of theories in Judgment and Decision Making (JDM) and identify the challenges in theory formulation for different classes of models. Elaborating on classic Popperian ideas, we suggest some guidelines for publication of theoretical work.
Volume (Year): 6 (2011)
Issue (Month): 8 (December)
|Contact details of provider:|| |
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.:
- Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
- Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
- Andreas Glöckner & Tilmann Betsch, 2008. "Modeling Option and Strategy Choices with Connectionist Networks: Towards an Integrative Model of Automatic and Deliberate Decision Making," Working Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2008_02, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
- Andreas Glöckner & Tilmann Betsch, 2008. "Multiple-Reason Decision Making Based on Automatic Processing," Working Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2008_12, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
- Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979.
"Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,"
Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
- Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7656, David K. Levine.
- Natalia Karelaia & Robin Hogarth, 2007. "Determinants of linear judgment: A meta-analysis of lens model studies," Economics Working Papers 1007, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
- Fiedler, Klaus & Freytag, Peter & Meiser, Thorsten, 2009. "Pseudocontingencies: An Integrative Account of an Intriguing Cognitive Illusion," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 08-36, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
- Tracy Tomlinson & Julian N. Marewski & Michael Dougherty, 2011. "Four challenges for cognitive research on the recognition heuristic and a call for a research strategy shift," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(1), pages 89-99, February.
- Slovic, Paul & Finucane, Melissa & Peters, Ellen & MacGregor, Donald G., 2002. "Rational actors or rational fools: implications of the affect heuristic for behavioral economics," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 329-342.
- Klaus Fiedler, 2010. "How to study cognitive decision algorithms: The case of the priority heuristic," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(1), pages 21-32, February.
- Benjamin E. Hilbig, 2010. "Precise models deserve precise measures: A methodological dissection," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(4), pages 272-284, July. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:jdm:journl:v:6:y:2011:i:8:p:711-721. 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: (Jonathan Baron)
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.