Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorQuentin, André
dc.contributor.authorDe Langhe, Bart
dc.date.accessioned2022-10-28T03:09:59Z
dc.date.available2022-10-28T03:09:59Z
dc.date.issued2021en_US
dc.identifier.issn0096-3445
dc.identifier.doi10.1037/xge0001053
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12127/7134
dc.description.abstractAndré and de Langhe (2021) pointed out that Walasek and Stewart (2015) estimated loss aversion on different lotteries in different conditions. Because of this flaw in the experimental design, their results should not be taken as evidence that loss aversion can disappear and reverse, or that decision by sampling is the origin of loss aversion. In their response to André and de Langhe (2021); Walasek et al. (2021) defend the link between decision by sampling and loss aversion. We take their response as an opportunity to emphasize three guiding principles when testing theory with data: (a) Look for data that are uniquely predicted by the theory, (b) Do not ignore data that contradict the theory, and (c) If an experiment is flawed, fix it. In light of these principles, we do not believe that Walasek et al. (2021) provide new insights about the origin and stability of loss aversion.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherAmerican Psychological Associationen_US
dc.titleHow (Not) To Test Theory with Data: Illustrations from Walasek, Mullett, and Stewarten_US
dc.identifier.journalJournal of Experimental Psychology: Generalen_US
dc.source.volume150en_US
dc.source.issue12en_US
dc.source.beginpage2671en_US
dc.source.endpage2674en_US
dc.identifier.eissn1939-2222
vlerick.knowledgedomainMarketing & Salesen_US
vlerick.typearticleJournal article with impact factoren_US
vlerick.vlerickdepartmentMKTen_US
dc.identifier.vperid300832en_US


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record