Advertisement

Testing

  • Darren Grant
Chapter
Part of the Springer Texts in Business and Economics book series (STBE)

Abstract

This chapter treats hypothesis testing as an opportunity for the researcher to distinguish between three possible explanations for a set of empirical findings: random chance, the scientific hypothesis of primary interest, and alternative scientific hypotheses. The methods it offers to advance this goal involve refining the null hypothesis, while increasing the scrutiny of the primary scientific hypothesis of interest and the number of alternative scientific hypotheses that it must compete with. These methods are brought to life in applications to home sales in New England, multiproduct pricing in Major League Baseball, turnout in Congressional elections, and the link between abortion and crime.

References

  1. Card D, Krueger A (1994) Minimum wages and employment: a case study of the fast food industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Am Econ Rev 84(4):772–793Google Scholar
  2. Donohue J, Levitt S (2001) The impact of legalized abortion on crime. Q J Econ 116(2):379–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fanelli D (2010) “Positive” results increase down the hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS One 5(4)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gabaix X (1999) Zipf’s law for cities: an explanation. Q J Econ 114(3):739–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gelman A (2016) What has happened down here is the winds have changed. Blog Post. Available at http://andrewgelman.com/2016/09/21/what-has-happened-down-here-is-the-winds-have-changed/. Accessed 21 Sept 2016
  6. Grant D (1998) Searching for the Downsian voter with a simple structural model. Econ Polit 10(2):107–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grant D, Toma M (2008) Elemental tests of the traditional rational voting model. Publ Choice 137(1):173–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hall RE (1978) Stochastic implications of the life cycle-permanent income hypothesis: theory and evidence. J Polit Econ 86(6):971–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ioannidis J (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2:696–701Google Scholar
  10. Joyce T (2009) A simple test of abortion and crime. Rev Econ Stat 91(1):112–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Law MT, Kim S (2005) Specialization and regulation: the rise of professionals and the emergence of occupational licensing regulation. J Econ Hist 65(3):723–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lehrer J (2010) The truth wears off. New Yorker:52–57Google Scholar
  13. Levine P, Staiger D, Kane T, Zimmerman D (1999) Roe v. Wade and American fertility. Am J Public Health 89(2):199–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Manzi J (2012) Uncontrolled: the surprising payoff of trial-and-error for business, politics, and society. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Paldam M (2016) Simulating an empirical paper by the rational economist. Empir Econ 50(4):1383–1407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Räsänen P, Hakko H, Isohanni M, Hodgins S, Järvelin M, Tiihonen J (1999) Maternal smoking during pregnancy and risk of criminal behavior among adult male offspring in the northern Finland 1966 birth cohort. Am J Psychiatry 156(6):857–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Reyes JW (2015) Lead exposure and behavior: effects on antisocial and risky behavior among children and adolescents. Econ Inq 53(3):1580–1605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sass T, Saurman D (1993) Mandated exclusive territories and economic efficiency: an empirical analysis of the malt beverage industry. J Law Econ 36(1):153–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tucker C, Zhang J, Zhu T (2013) Days on market and home sales. Rand J Econ 44(2):337–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Darren Grant
    • 1
  1. 1.Sam Houston State UniversityHuntsvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations