Claims and confounds in economic experiments

Author: Andreoni, Armantier, Ashraf, Bardsley, Benjamin, Berg, Branas-Garza, Brandts, Casari, Chaudhuri, Cherry, Cook, Cookson, Cooper, Cooper, Daniel John Zizzo, Davidson, Davis, Fehr, Ferraro, Fong, Friedman, Greenland, Guala, Guala, Guala, G√§chter, G√§chter, Haisley, Harrison, Harrison, Hertwig, Hertwig, Hey, Hoffman, Hogarth, Holt, Huck, Huck, Jackson, Jones, List, Mayo, Mill, Millner, Nikiforakis, Oberholzer-Gee, Patten, Reinstein, Requate, Rigdon, Rustrom, Schram, Shang, Slonim, Smith, Smith, Smith, Stöber, Sugden, Sutter, Sutter, Vieider, Zizzo, Zizzo
Publisher: Elsevier BV

ABOUT BOOK

We present a distinctiveness, relevance and plausibility (DRP) method for systematically evaluating potential experimental confounds. A claim is a statement being inferred on the basis of experimental data analysis. A potential confound is a statement providing a prima facie reason why the claim is not justified (other than internal weakness). In evaluating whether a potential confound is problematic, we can start by asking whether the potential confound is distinctive from the claim; we can then ask whether it is relevant for the claim; and we can conclude by asking whether it is plausible in the light of the evidence

Powered by: