Editorial: Methodology in judgment and decision making research

Judgment and Decision Making

Volumn 6, Issue 8, 2011, Pages 705-710

  Glöckner, Andreas ^a   Hilbig, Benjamin E ^b  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH ON COLLECTIVE GOODS   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MANNHEIM   (Germany)

Author keywords

Judgment and decision making; Methodology

Indexed keywords

EID: 84855211550     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19302975     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Andersen, S., Harrison, G. W., Lau, M. I., & Rutström, E. E. (2010). Behavioral econometrics for psychologists. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31, 553-576.
2. Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 396-403.
3. Birnbaum, M. H. (2008a). Evaluation of the priority heuristic as a descriptive model of risky decision making: Comment on Brandstätter, Gigerenzer, and Hertwig (2006). Psychological Review, 115, 253-260.
4. Birnbaum, M. H. (2008b). New tests of cumulative prospect theory and the priority heuristic: Probabilityoutcome tradeoff with branch splitting. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 304-316.
5. Birnbaum, M. H., & LaCroix, A. R. (2008). Dimension integration: Testing models without trade-offs. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105, 122-133.
6. Brandstätter, E., Gigerenzer, G., & Hertwig, R. (2006). Making choices without trade-offs: The priority heuristic. Psychological Review, 113, 409-432.
7. Brighton, H., & Gigerenzer, G. (2011). Towards competitive instead of biased testing of heuristics: A reply to Hilbig and Richter (2011). Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 197-205.
8. Bröder, A., & Schiffer, S. (2003). Bayesian strategy assessment in multi-attribute decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16, 193-213.
9. Broomell, S. B., Budescu, D. V., & Por, H.-H. (2011). Pair-wise comparisons of multiple models. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 821-831.
10. Budescu, D. V., & Johnson, T. R. (2011). A modelbased approach for the analysis of the calibration of probability judgments. Judgmentand Decision Making, 6, 857-869.
11. Camilleri, A. R., & Newell, B. R. (2011). When and why rare events are underweighted: A direct comparison of the sampling, partial feedback, full feedback and deEditorial 709 scription choice paradigms. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 377-384.
12. Davis-Stober, C. P., & Brown, N. (2011). A shift in strategy or "error"? Strategy classification over multiple stochastic specifications. Judgment and Decision Making, 6 800-813.
13. De Houwer, J., Fiedler, K., & Moors, A. (2011). Strengths and limitations of theoretical explanations in psychology: Introduction to the special section. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 161-162.
14. Dienes, Z. (2011). Bayesian versus orthodox statistics: Which side are you on? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 274-290.
15. Doyle, J. R., Chen, C. H., & Savani, K. (2011). New designs for research in delay discounting. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 759-770.
16. Erev, I., Ert, E., Roth, A. E., Haruvy, E., Herzog, S. M., Hau, R., et al. (2010). A Choice Prediction Competition: Choices from Experience and from Description. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 23, 15-47.
17. Fiedler, K. (2010). How to study cognitive decision algorithms: The case of the priority heuristic. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 21-32.
18. Franco-Watkins, A. M., & Johnson, J. G. (2011). Applying the decision moving window to risky choice: Comparison of eye-tracking and mousetracing methods. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 740-749.
19. Gigerenzer, G. (1998). Surrogates for theories. Theory & Psychology, 8, 195-204.
20. Glöckner, A., & Betsch, T. (2008). Do people make decisions under risk based on ignorance? An empirical test of the priority heuristic against cumulative prospect theory. Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 107, 75-95.
21. Glöckner, A., & Betsch, T. (2011). The Empirical Content of theories in judgment and decision making: shortcomings and remedies. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 711-721.
22. Henderson, D. K. (1991). On the testability of psychological generalizations (psychological testability). Philosophy of Science, 58, 586-606.
23. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61-83.
24. Hilbig, B. E. (2008). One-reason decision making in risky choice? A closer look at the priority heuristic. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 457-462.
25. Hilbig, B. E. (2010). Reconsidering evidence" for fastand-frugal heuristics. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 923-930.
26. Hilbig, B. E., & Richter, T. (2011). Homo heuristicus outnumbered: Comment on Gigerenzer and Brighton (2009). Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 187-196.
27. Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2, 697-701.
28. Ioannidis, J. P., Tatsioni, A., & Karassa, F. B. (2010). Who is afraid of reviewers' comments? Or, why anything can be published and anything can be cited. European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 40, 285-287.
29. Jekel, M., Fiedler, S., & Glöckner, A. (2011). Diagnostic task selection for strategy classification in judgment and decision making. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 782-799.
30. Jekel, M., Nicklisch, A., & Glöckner, A. (2010). Implementation of the Multiple-Measure Maximum Likelihood strategy classification method in R: Addendum to Glöckner (2009) and practical guide for application. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 54-63.
31. Katsikopoulos, K. V., & Lan, C.-H. (2011). Herbert Simon's spell on judgment and decision making. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 722-732.
32. Koop, G. J., & Johnson, J. G. (2011). Continuous process tracing and the Iowa Gambling Task: Extending response dynamics to multialternative choice. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 750-758.
33. Kruschke, J. K. (2011). Introduction to special section on bayesian data analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science 6, 272-273.
34. Lee, M. D., & Newell, B. R. (2011). Using hierarchical Bayesian methods to examine the tools of decisionmaking. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 832-842.
35. Marewski, J. N., Chooler, L. J., & Gigerenzer, G. (2010). Five principles for studying people's use of heuristics Acta Psychologica Sinica, 42, 72-87.
36. Matthews, W. J. (2011). What would judgment and decision making research be like if we took a Bayesian approach to hypothesis testing? Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 843-856.
37. Moshagen, M., & Hilbig, B. E. (2011). Methodological notes on model comparisons and strategy classification: A falsificationist proposition. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 814-820.
38. Murphy, R. O., Ackerman, K. A., & Handgraaf, M. J. J. (2011). Measuring social value orientation. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 771-781
39. Newell, B. R. (2005). Re-Visions of rationality? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 11-15.
40. Pachur, T. (2011). The limited value of precise tests of the recognition heuristic. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 413-422.
41. Regenwetter, M., Dana, J., & Davis-Stober, C. P. (2011). Transitivity of preferences. Psychological Review, 118, 42-56.
42. Regenwetter, M., Ho, M.-H. R., & Tsetlin, I. (2007). Sophisticated approval voting, ignorance priors, and plurality heuristics: A behavioral social choice analysis in a Thurstonian framework. Psychological Review, 114, 994-1014.
43. Renkewitz, F., Fuchs, H. M., & Fiedler, S. (2011). Is there evidence of publication biases in JDM research? Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 870-881.
44. Rouder, J. N., Speckman, P. L., Sun, D. C., Morey, R. D., Iverson, G. (2009). Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 225-237.
45. Rozin, P. (2009). What kind of empirical research should we publish, fund, and reward? A different perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 435-439.
46. Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., Kühberger, A., & Ranyard, R. (2011). The role of process data in the development and testing of process models of judgment and decision making. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 733-739.
47. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., and Simonsohn, U. (in press). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science.
48. Spivey, M. J., & Dale, R. (2006). Continuous Dynamics in Real-Time Cognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 207-211.
49. Trafimow, D. (2003). Hypothesis testing and theory evaluation at the boundaries: Surprising insights from Bayes's theorem. Psychological Review, 110, 526-535.
50. Trafimow, D. (2009). The theory of reasoned action: A case study of falsification in psychology. Theory & Psychology, 19, 501-518.
51. Van Lange, P. A. M. (1999). The pursuit of joint outcomes and equality in outcomes: An integrative model of social value orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 337-349.
52. Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2007). A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 779-804.
53. Wagenmakers, E.-J., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., & van der Maas, H. L. J. (2011). Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: The case of Psi: Comment on Bem (2011). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 426-432.
54. Wallach, L., & Wallach, M. A. (1994). Gergen versus the mainstream: Are hypotheses in social psychology subject to empirical test? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 233-242.
55. Wetzels, R., Matzke, D., Lee, M. D., Rouder, J. N., Iverson, G. J., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2011). Statistical evidence in experimental psychology: An empirical comparison using 855 t Tests. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 291-298.