Methodological notes on model comparisons and strategy classification: A falsificationist proposition
Journal Title: Judgment and Decision Making - Year 2011, Vol 6, Issue 8
Abstract
Taking a falsificationist perspective, the present paper identifies two major shortcomings of existing approaches to comparative model evaluations in general and strategy classifications in particular. These are (1) failure to consider systematic error and (2) neglect of global model fit. Using adherence measures to evaluate competing models implicitly makes the unrealistic assumption that the error associated with the model predictions is entirely random. By means of simple schematic examples, we show that failure to discriminate between systematic and random error seriously undermines this approach to model evaluation. Second, approaches that treat random versus systematic error appropriately usually rely on relative model fit to infer which model or strategy most likely generated the data. However, the model comparatively yielding the best fit may still be invalid. We demonstrate that taking for granted the vital requirement that a model by itself should adequately describe the data can easily lead to flawed conclusions. Thus, prior to considering the relative discrepancy of competing models, it is necessary to assess their absolute fit and thus, again, attempt falsification. Finally, the scientific value of model fit is discussed from a broader perspective.
Authors and Affiliations
Morten Moshagen and Benjamin E. Hilbig
Keywords
Related Articles
- EP ID EP677864
- DOI -
- Views 147
- Downloads 0
“I am uncertain” vs “It is uncertain”. How linguistic markers of the uncertainty source affect uncertainty communication
Two psychological sources of uncertainty bear implications for judgment and decision-making: external uncertainty is seen as stemming from properties of the world, whereas internal uncertainty is seen as stemming from la...
Consumers can make decisions in as little as a third of a second
We make hundreds of decisions every day, many of them extremely quickly and without much explicit deliberation. This motivates two important open questions: What is the minimum time required to make choices with above ch...
The environment matters: Comparing individuals and dyads in their adaptive use of decision strategies
Individuals have been shown to adaptively select decision strategies depending on the environment structure. Two experiments extended this research to the group level. Subjects (N = 240) worked either individually or in...
The effects of anticipated regret on risk preferences of social and problem gamblers
Anticipated regret is an important determinant in risky decision making, however only a few studies have explored its role in problem gambling. This study tested for differences in the anticipation of regret among social...
Pace yourself: Improving time-saving judgments when increasing activity speed
The time-saving bias describes people’s tendency to misestimate the time they can save by increasing the speed in which they perform an activity such as driving or completing a task. People typically underestimate time s...