HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results are Known¶
Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results are Known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 196-217.
Cited by¶
7 citations across 7 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Informal Fallacy
- In science and its philosophy, the ad-hoc rescue (the no-true-Scotsman move applied to a theory's auxiliary definitions) and the appeal to ignorance recur as named failures of scientific argument, and the modern methodological literature names HARKing (hypothesizing after the results are known) and the narrative around p-hacking as post-hoc rationalizations
This sourceNames HARKing — presenting a post-hoc hypothesis as if predicted — a presumption/acceptability defect whose 'this was a prediction' premise is unwarranted independently of the result it was fitted to.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
Kerr's abstract names HARKing and defines it as presenting a post hoc hypothesis as if a priori; it says nothing of the claim's p-hacking, no-true-Scotsman, or appeal-to-ignorance clauses.
“HARKing is defined as presenting a post hoc hypothesis (i.e., one based on or informed by one's results) in one's research report as if it were, in fact, an a priori hypotheses.”
- In science and its philosophy, the ad-hoc rescue (the no-true-Scotsman move applied to a theory's auxiliary definitions) and the appeal to ignorance recur as named failures of scientific argument, and the modern methodological literature names HARKing (hypothesizing after the results are known) and the narrative around p-hacking as post-hoc rationalizations
Domain-specific¶
- HARKing (Hypothesizing After the Results are Known)
- HARKing — Hypothesizing After the Results are Known
This sourceThe paper that introduces the term HARKing and defines it as presenting a post hoc hypothesis in a research report as if it were an a priori one. Kerr's 1998 article, which names HARKing in its title and defines it.
SupportedVerified against the source
- HARKing — Hypothesizing After the Results are Known
Mechanisms¶
- Exploratory Data Analysis
- Its central failure mode is over-reading the exploration: because EDA is unconstrained, an analyst can keep plotting until some view looks meaningful and then report that discovered pattern as if it had been hypothesized in advance — HARKing dressed as insight.
This sourceDefines HARKing as presenting a hypothesis formed after seeing results as though it had been specified in advance.
- Its central failure mode is over-reading the exploration: because EDA is unconstrained, an analyst can keep plotting until some view looks meaningful and then report that discovered pattern as if it had been hypothesized in advance — HARKing dressed as insight.
- Pre-Analysis Power Statement
- The misuse it most directly guards against is HARKing — presenting a hypothesis discovered in the data as though it had been predicted, the very move a timestamped frame forecloses.
This sourceDefines HARKing as presenting a hypothesis developed after seeing results as though it had been specified a priori.
- The misuse it most directly guards against is HARKing — presenting a hypothesis discovered in the data as though it had been predicted, the very move a timestamped frame forecloses.
- Preregistration
- Deviations are permitted but must be disclosed as such, which is what keeps hypothesizing-after-results honest.
This sourceDistinguishes honest, explicitly post hoc hypothesizing from HARKing, whose defect is presenting a result-informed hypothesis as though it had been specified a priori.
- Deviations are permitted but must be disclosed as such, which is what keeps hypothesizing-after-results honest.
- Preregistration Refutation Table
- Scientific Experimentation Cycle
- Its failure mode is HARKing — hypothesizing after the results are known, then presenting the post-hoc story as if it had been predicted, which quietly converts an exploratory fishing trip into a fake confirmation.
This sourceDefines HARKing as developing a hypothesis after seeing the results and reporting it as though it had been specified beforehand.
- Its failure mode is HARKing — hypothesizing after the results are known, then presenting the post-hoc story as if it had been predicted, which quietly converts an exploratory fishing trip into a fake confirmation.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 2 of 7 citations: 1 supported, 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Was it audited? Yes. A second, independent pass read the citation against the article text and recorded a verdict.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:8e43e2333ba8 · see in the full table