The Illusion of Predictability: How Regression Statistics Mislead Experts

Does the manner in which results are presented in empirical studies affect perceptions of the predictability of the outcomes? Noting the predominant role of linear regression analysis in empirical economics, we asked 257 academic economists to make probabilistic inferences based on different presentations of the outputs of this statistical tool. The questions concerned the distribution of the dependent variable, conditional on known values of the independent variable. The answers based on the presentation mode that is standard in the literature demonstrated an illusion of predictability; the outcomes were perceived to be more predictable than could be justified by the model. In particular, many respondents failed to take the error term into account. Adding graphs did not improve the inference. Paradoxically, the respondents were more accurate when only graphs were provided (i.e., no regression statistics). The implications of our study suggest, inter alia, the need to reconsider the way in which empirical results are presented, and the possible provision of easy-to-use simulation tools that would enable readers of empirical papers to make accurate inferences.

[1]  Peter Schmidt,et al.  The Theory and Practice of Econometrics , 1985 .

[2]  M. C. Jensen The Performance of Mutual Funds in the Period 1945-1964 , 1967 .

[3]  B. Baltagi,et al.  WORLDWIDE ECONOMETRICS RANKINGS: 1989–2005 , 2007, Econometric Theory.

[4]  D. Mccloskey,et al.  The Cult of Statistical Significance: How the Standard Error Costs Us Jobs, Justice, and Lives , 2008 .

[5]  Spyros Makridakis,et al.  Factors affecting judgmental forecasts and confidence intervals , 1989 .

[6]  Lisa M. Schwartz,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST Helping Doctors and Patients Make Sense of Health Statistics , 2022 .

[7]  Daniel G. Goldstein,et al.  We Don't Quite Know What We Are Talking About , 2007 .

[8]  J. Armstrong Significance Tests Harm Progress in Forecasting , 2007 .

[9]  A. Zellner To test or not to test and if so, how?: Comments on "size matters" , 2004 .

[10]  J. Armstrong,et al.  Replications and Extensions in Marketing - Rarely Published But Quite Contrary , 1994 .

[11]  Stephen T. Ziliak,et al.  Size Matters: The Standard Error of Regressions in the American Economic Review , 2004 .

[12]  Emre Soyer,et al.  Sequentially simulated outcomes: kind experience versus nontransparent description. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[13]  Colin Camerer,et al.  The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework , 1999 .

[14]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .

[15]  Student BELIEF IN THE LAW OF SMALL NUMBERS , 1994 .

[16]  Athanasios G. Noulas,et al.  Performance of Mutual Funds , 2005 .

[17]  Colin Camerer Prospect Theory In The Wild: Evidence From The Field , 1998 .

[18]  W. Starbuck,et al.  Null-hypothesis significance tests in behavioral and management research: We can do better , 2009 .

[19]  A. Zellner Posterior odds ratios for regression hypotheses : General considerations and some specific results , 1981 .

[20]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk — Source link , 2007 .

[21]  Deirdre N. McCloskey,et al.  The Standard Error of Regressions , 1996 .

[22]  G. Kalyanaram,et al.  Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness , 2011 .

[23]  Econometric Modeling: A Likelihood Approach , 2007 .

[24]  Mark M. Carhart On Persistence in Mutual Fund Performance , 1997 .

[25]  H. Simon,et al.  Rationality as Process and as Product of Thought , 1978 .

[26]  Jeffrey M. Wooldridge,et al.  Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach , 1999 .