论文标题
简单的模型至少可以预测行为和行为科学家
Simple models predict behavior at least as well as behavioral scientists
论文作者
论文摘要
行为科学家预测行为的准确程度如何？为了回答这个问题，我们分析了五项研究的数据，其中640位专业行为科学家预测了一个或多个行为科学实验的结果。我们将行为科学家的预测与随机机会，线性模型和简单的启发式方法进行了比较，例如“行为干预无效”和“所有已发表的心理学研究都是错误的”。我们发现，行为科学家始终不比这些简单的启发式方法和模型更好，而且通常还要糟糕。行为科学家的预测不仅嘈杂，而且是偏见。他们系统地高估了行为科学的“工作原理”的效果：高估了行为干预的有效性，心理现象（如时间折扣）的影响以及已发表的心理学研究的可复制性。
How accurately can behavioral scientists predict behavior? To answer this question, we analyzed data from five studies in which 640 professional behavioral scientists predicted the results of one or more behavioral science experiments. We compared the behavioral scientists' predictions to random chance, linear models, and simple heuristics like "behavioral interventions have no effect" and "all published psychology research is false." We find that behavioral scientists are consistently no better than - and often worse than - these simple heuristics and models. Behavioral scientists' predictions are not only noisy but also biased. They systematically overestimate how well behavioral science "works": overestimating the effectiveness of behavioral interventions, the impact of psychological phenomena like time discounting, and the replicability of published psychology research.
