Gigerenzer’s ‘external validity argument’ against the heuristics and biases program: an assessment
Gigerenzer’s ‘external validity argument’ plays a pivotal role in his critique of the heuristics and biases research program (HB). The basic idea is that (a) the experimental contexts deployed by HB are not representative of the real environment and that (b) the differences between the setting and the real environment are causally relevant, because they result in different performances by the subjects. However, by considering Gigerenzer’s work on frequencies in probability judgments, this essay attempts to show that there are fatal flaws in the argument. Specifically, each of the claims is controversial: whereas (b) is not adequately empirically justified, (a) is inconsistent with the ‘debiasing’ program of Gigerenzer’s ABC group. Therefore, whatever reason we might have for believing that the experimental findings of HB lack experimental validity, this should not be based on Gigerenzer’s version of the argument. Copyright Springer-Verlag 2012
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.
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.
Volume (Year): 11 (2012)
Issue (Month): 2 (December)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.springer.com|
Web page: http://www.fondazionerosselli.it
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/11299|
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.:
- Binmore, Ken, 1999. "Why Experiment in Economics?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 109(453), pages F16-24, February.
- John List, 2008. "Homo experimentalis evolves," Artefactual Field Experiments 00084, The Field Experiments Website.
- Glenn Harrison & John List, 2004.
Artefactual Field Experiments
00058, The Field Experiments Website.
- repec:feb:artefa:0087 is not listed on IDEAS
- Steven Levitt & John List, 2008.
"Field experiments in economics: The past, the present, and the future,"
Artefactual Field Experiments
00079, The Field Experiments Website.
- Levitt, Steven D. & List, John A., 2009. "Field experiments in economics: The past, the present, and the future," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 1-18, January.
- Steven D. Levitt & John A. List, 2008. "Field Experiments in Economics: The Past, The Present, and The Future," NBER Working Papers 14356, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Jones, Steven K. & Taylor Jones, Kristine & Frisch, Deborah, 1995. "Biases of Probability Assessment: A Comparison of Frequency and Single-Case Judgments," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 109-122, February.
- repec:feb:artefa:0091 is not listed on IDEAS
- Nilsson, Håkan & Andersson, Patric, 2010. "Making the seemingly impossible appear possible: Effects of conjunction fallacies in evaluations of bets on football games," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 172-180, April.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:minsoc:v:11:y:2012:i:2:p:133-148. 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: (Sonal Shukla)or (Rebekah McClure)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.