IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/feb/natura/00457.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

One Swallow Doesn't Make a Summer: Reply to Kataria

Author

Listed:
  • John List
  • Zacharias Maniadis
  • Fabio Tufano

Abstract

In his comment, Mitesh Kataria (2014) makes three main points about a specific part of our paper (Maniadis, Tufano, and List 2014), namely about Tables 2 and 3. In our paper, we employ these tables in order to illustrate the idea that very inconclusive post-study probabilities that a tested phenomenon is true may result from novel, surprising findings. The main arguments in Kataria (2014) are the following: First, if P(H0) is unknown, as is often the case with economic applications, the post-study probability can lead to even worse inference than the Classical significance test, depending on the quality of the prior. Second, the simulation in Maniadis et al. (2014) ignores previous assessments of P(H0) and instead utilizes a selective empirical setup that favors the use of post-study probabilities. [Third,] contrary to what Maniadis et al. (2014) argue, their results do not allow for drawing general recommendations about which approach is the most appropriate. (Kataria 2014, abs.) We believe that our work might have been misunderstood by Kataria. Moreover, it seems that some of his claims are not supported by relevant empirical evidence.

Suggested Citation

  • John List & Zacharias Maniadis & Fabio Tufano, 2014. "One Swallow Doesn't Make a Summer: Reply to Kataria," Natural Field Experiments 00457, The Field Experiments Website.
  • Handle: RePEc:feb:natura:00457
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://s3.amazonaws.com/fieldexperiments-papers2/papers/00457.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew J. Oswald, 2007. "An Examination of the Reliability of Prestigious Scholarly Journals: Evidence and Implications for Decision-Makers," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 74(293), pages 21-31, February.
    2. Zacharias Maniadis & Fabio Tufano & John A. List, 2014. "One Swallow Doesn't Make a Summer: Reply to Kataria," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 11(1), pages 11-16, January.
    3. Christoph Engel, 2011. "Dictator games: a meta study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(4), pages 583-610, November.
    4. De Long, J Bradford & Lang, Kevin, 1992. "Are All Economic Hypotheses False?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 100(6), pages 1257-1272, December.
    5. Mitesh Kataria, 2014. "One Swallow Doesn't Make a Summer: A Comment on Zacharias Maniadis, Fabio Tufano, and John List," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 11(1), pages 4-10, January.
    6. John Ioannidis & Chris Doucouliagos, 2013. "What'S To Know About The Credibility Of Empirical Economics?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(5), pages 997-1004, December.
    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. Greg Fischer & Dean Karlan & Margaret McConnell & Pia Raffler, 2014. "To Charge or Not to Charge: Evidence from a Health Products Experiment in Uganda," Working Papers 1041, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.
    2. Zacharias Maniadis & Fabio Tufano & John A. List, 2014. "One Swallow Doesn't Make a Summer: Reply to Kataria," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 11(1), pages 11-16, January.
    3. Kathryn Graddy & Lara Loewenstein & Jianping Mei & Mike Moses & Rachel Pownall, 2014. "Empirical Evidence of Anchoring and Loss Aversion from Art Auctions," Working Papers 73, Brandeis University, Department of Economics and International Businesss School, revised Apr 2015.
    4. Kathryn Graddy & Lara Loewenstein & Jianping Mei & Mike Moses & Rachel A J Pownall, 2014. "Anchoring or Loss Aversion? Empirical Evidence from Art Auctions," ACEI Working Paper Series AWP-04-2014, Association for Cultural Economics International, revised Jun 2014.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • B40 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology - - - General
    • C10 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - 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:feb:natura:00457. 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: (Joe Seidel). General contact details of provider: http://www.fieldexperiments.com .

    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.