IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jdm/journl/v6y2011i8p711-721.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Empirical content of theories in judgment and decision making: Shortcomings and remedies

Author

Listed:
  • Andreas Glockner
  • Tilmann Betsch

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Andreas Glockner & Tilmann Betsch, 2011. "The Empirical content of theories in judgment and decision making: Shortcomings and remedies," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(8), pages 711-721, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:jdm:journl:v:6:y:2011:i:8:p:711-721
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://journal.sjdm.org/11/m38/m38.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://journal.sjdm.org/11/m38/m38.html
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andreas Glöckner & Tilmann Betsch, 2008. "Modeling Option and Strategy Choices with Connectionist Networks: Towards an Integrative Model of Automatic and Deliberate Decision Making," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2008_02, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    2. Andreas Glöckner & Tilmann Betsch, 2008. "Multiple-Reason Decision Making Based on Automatic Processing," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2008_12, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    3. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. repec:jdm:journl:v:12:y:2017:i:6:p:537-552 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Steven Verheyen & Wouter Voorspoels & Gert Storms, 2015. "Inferring choice criteria with mixture IRT models: A demonstration using ad hoc and goal-derived categories," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(1), pages 97-114, January.
    3. Basel, Jörn S. & Brühl, Rolf, 2013. "Rationality and dual process models of reasoning in managerial cognition and decision making," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 745-754.
    4. Andreas Glockner & Benjamin E. Hilbig, 2011. "Editorial: Methodology in judgment and decision making research," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(8), pages 705-710, December.
    5. Pascal J. Kieslich & Benjamin E. Hilbig, 2015. "Judging competing theoretical accounts by their empirical content and parsimony: Reply to Myrseth and Wollbrant (2015)," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(3), pages 280-283, May.

    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: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). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.