Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Scopus||Web of Science®||Altmetric|
|Title:||Sensitivity to hypothesis size during information search|
|Citation:||Decision, 2016; 3(1):62-80|
|Publisher:||American Psychological Association|
|Andrew T. Hendrickson, Daniel J. Navarro, and Amy Perfors|
|Abstract:||It is well known that people attempting to perform hypothesis testing show a positive test bias, preferring to request evidence that is consistent (rather than inconsistent) with their current hypothesis. Rather than viewing this as an irrational bias, information theoretic accounts of hypothesis testing have argued that selecting tests likely to produce positive evidence is adaptive when most hypotheses are small (i.e., true of few entities in the world) and respond positively to very few queries. These accounts make the prediction that as hypotheses get larger, the relative utility of positive evidence will decrease; when hypotheses are large enough, negative evidence will become more useful than positive evidence. We test if people are sensitive to this change in utility with an experiment inspired by the game “Battleship,” in which people attempt to discover the correct arrangement of ships by asking for positive or negative evidence. As predicted, as hypotheses become larger people request less positive evidence, and when hypotheses are large requests for negative evidence are more likely than requests for positive evidence. Implications for the nature of the positive test bias are discussed.|
|Keywords:||Confirmation bias; hypothesis testing; rational analysis|
|Rights:||© 2016 American Psychological Association|
|Appears in Collections:||Psychology publications|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.