Klaus Fiedler

TL;DR: In this paper, Fiedler et al. found that participants did not correct for the repetition of positive or negative information about a share when evaluating stock market shares, and preferences were misled by mere repetition of success and failure reports (unsuccessful control).

TL;DR: This article obtained strong and regular positive correlations between all four distance aspects, across judges and judgment targets, regardless of whether freely construed future episodes or really experienced past episodes were judged, and existing ecological correlations seem to account for the positive relationship between time, space, probability and temporal distance.

Abstract: Several influential publications have sensitized the community of behavioral scientists to the dangers of inflated effects and false-positive errors leading to the unwarranted publication of nonreplicable findings. This issue has been related to prominent cases of data fabrication and survey results pointing to bad practices in empirical science. Although we concur with the motives behind these critical arguments, we note that an isolated debate of false positives may itself be misleading and counter-productive. Instead, we argue that, given the current state of affairs in behavioral science, false negatives often constitute a more serious problem. Referring to Wason’s (1960) seminal work on inductive reasoning, we show that the failure to assertively generate and test alternative hypotheses can lead to dramatic theoretical mistakes, which cannot be corrected by any kind of rigor applied to statistical tests of the focal hypotheses. We conclude that a scientific culture rewarding strong inference (Platt, 1964) is more likely to see progress than a culture preoccupied with tightening its standards for the mere publication of original findings.

TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a general framework for understanding social cognition, including the use of information in judgments, as well as the role of the self as a powerful knowledge structure.