Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

When wrong predictions provide more support than right ones.

Craig R M McKenzie1, Marsha B Amin

  • 1Department of Psychology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093-0109, USA. cmckenzie@ucsd.edu

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
|March 5, 2003
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Citation penalties following sexual versus scientific misconduct allegations.

PloS one·2025
Same author

Choices without preferences: Principles of rational arbitrariness.

Psychological review·2025
Same author

Incomplete preferences and rational framing effects.

The Behavioral and brain sciences·2022
Same author

Is it a judgment of representativeness? Re-examining the birth sequence problem.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2022
Same author

Sensitivity to shifts in probability of harm and benefit in moral dilemmas.

Cognition·2021
Same author

Default sensitivity in attempts at social influence.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2020
Same journal

Mind wandering during first- and foreign-language reading.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
Same journal

Lexical word processing is unaffected by rapid invisible frequency tagging in reading: Evidence from eye movements.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
Same journal

Anxiety modulates voluntary attentional orienting to emotional gaze cues: Eye movements for pro- and anti-saccades.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
Same journal

Faster key-press responses to front vowels than back vowels when matching heard vowels with represented vowels.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
Same journal

Testing the interleaving effect without response bias: A forced-choice reevaluation of Kornell and Bjork (2008).

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
Same journal

The impact of social interaction on abstract concepts.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
See all related articles

People are more impressed by bold predictions, even if incorrect, than by correct but timid ones. This sensitivity to prediction boldness influences how individuals evaluate evidence and test hypotheses.

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Decision Science
  • Human Inference

Background:

  • Normative theories suggest correct predictions of rare events (bold predictions) offer stronger support for hypotheses than correct predictions of common events (timid predictions).
  • Understanding lay hypothesis testing requires examining sensitivity to the 'boldness' or rarity of predictive data.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate whether lay hypothesis testers are sensitive to the boldness of predictions when evaluating evidence.
  • To determine if individuals prioritize bold predictions over timid ones, even when the bold predictions are incorrect.

Main Methods:

  • Participants evaluated competing forecasters and scientific theories based on prediction accuracy and boldness.
  • Experimental design manipulated the boldness (rarity) and correctness of predictions presented to participants.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • Participants demonstrated significant sensitivity to prediction boldness, often valuing incorrect bold predictions more than correct timid ones.
  • Individuals were more tolerant of inaccurate predictions when those predictions were bold, indicating a bias towards rarity.

Conclusions:

  • Lay hypothesis testers are highly sensitive to the boldness of predictions, aligning with theories emphasizing sensitivity to data rarity.
  • A normative Bayesian account can explain these findings, offering an alternative to purely descriptive models of human inference.