Surrogates for Theories

Theory & Psychology

Volumn 8, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 195-204

  Gigerenzer, Gerd ^a  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT   (Germany)

Author keywords

explanation; null hypothesis testing; redescription; surrogates; theory construction

Indexed keywords

EID: 0032396987     PISSN: 09593543     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0959354398082006     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Bower, B.(1997). Null science. Science News, 151, 356-357.
2. Brandtstadter, J.(1987). On certainty and universality in human development: Developmental psychology between apriorism and empiricism. In M. Chapman & R. A. Dixon (Eds.), Meaning and the growth of understanding: Wittgenstein's significance for developmental psychology (pp. 69-84). Berlin: Springer.
3. Danziger, K.(1990). Constructing the subject. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. Einhom, H.J., & Hogarth, R.M. (1981). Behavioral decision theory: Processes of judgment and choice. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 53-88.
5. Fiedler, K.(1983). On the testability of the availability heuristic. In R. W. Scholz (Ed.), Decision making under uncertainty (pp. 109-119). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
6. Fiedler, K.(1991). Heuristics and biases in theory formation. Theory & Psychology, 1, 407-430.
7. Fiedler, K.(1996). Explaining and simulating judgment biases as an aggregation phenomenon in probabilistic, multiple-cue environments. Psychological Review, 103, 193-214.
8. Fodor, J.A.(1995). The folly of simulation. In P. Baumgartner & S. Payr (Eds.), Speaking minds: Interviews with twenty eminent cognitive scientists (pp. 85-100). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
9. Gigerenzer, G.(1981). Messung und Modellbildung in der Psychologie [Measurement and modelling in psychology]. Munich: Ernst Reinhardt (UTB).
10. Gigerenzer, G.(1992). Discovery in cognitive psychology: New tools inspire new theories. Science in Context, 5, 329-350.
11. Gigerenzer, G.(1993). The superego, the ego, and the id in statistical reasoning. In G. Keren & C. Lewis (Eds.), A handbook for data analysis in the behavioral sciences: Methodological issues (pp. 311-339). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Gigerenzer, G.(1994). Why the distinction between single-event probabilities and frequencies is relevant for psychology (and vice versa). In G. Wright & P. Ayton (Eds.), Subjective probability. Chichester: Wiley.
13. Gigerenzer, G.(1996). On narrow norms and vague heuristics: A rebuttal to Kahneman and Tversky (1996). Psychological Review, 103, 592-596.
14. Gigerenzer, G., & Murray, D.J. (1987). Cognition as intuitive statistics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Gigerenzer, G., & Regier, T. (1996). How do we tell an association from a rule? Comment on Sloman (1996). Psychological Bulletin, 119, 23-26.
16. Gigerenzer, G., Swijtink, Z., Porter, T., Daston, L.J., Beatty, J., & Kruiger, L. (1989). The empire of chance: How probability changed science and everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1996). On the reality of cognitive illusions. Psychological Review, 103, 582-591.
18. Massaro, D.W.(1988). Some criticisms of connectionist models of human performance. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 213-234.
19. Newell, A.(1973). You can't play 20 questions with nature and win: Projective comments on the papers of this symposium. In W. G. Chase (Ed.), Visual information processing (pp. 283-308). New York: Academic Press.
20. Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (1994). A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal data selection. Psychological Review, 101, 608-631.
21. Regier, T.(1996). The human semantic potential: Spatial language and constrained connectionism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22. Sahlin, N.-E.(1991). Baconian inductivism in research on human decision-making. Theory & Psychology, 1, 431-450.
23. Shanteau, J.(1989). Cognitive heuristics and biases in behavioral auditing: Review, comments and observations. Accounting Organizations and Society, 14, 165-177.
24. Shepard, R.N.(1962). The analysis of proximities. Part 2. Psychometrika, 27, 219-246.
25. Shepard, R.N.(1974). Representation of structure in similarity data: Problems and prospects. Psychometrika, 39, 373-421.
26. Sloman, S.A.(1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 3-22.
27. Smith, E.E., & Osherson, D.N. (1989). Similarity and decision making. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 60-75). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28. Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. New York: Oxford University Press.
29. Tversky, A.(1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327-352.
30. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
31. Wallach, L., & Wallach, M.A. (1994). Gergen versus the mainstream: Are hypo-theses in social psychology subject to empirical test? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 233-242.
32. Wallach, M.A., & Wallach, L. (1998). When experiments serve little purpose: Misguided research in mainstream psychology. Theory & Psychology, 8, 183-194.
33. Wallsten, T.S.(1983). The theoretical status of judgmental heuristics. In R. W. Scholz (Ed.), Decision making under uncertainty (pp. 21-39). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
34. Wanke, M., Schwarz, N., & Bless, H. (1995). The availability heuristic revisited: Experienced ease of retrieval in mundane frequency estimates. Acta Psychologica, 89, 83-90.