Hypothesizing After the Results are Known
Updated 2026-08-09
INTRODUCTION
English translation pending.
CORE DEFINITION
Coined by Norbert Kerr, HARKing describes the practice of formulating a hypothesis after seeing the results and presenting it as an a priori prediction. The data are inspected for a pattern, the pattern becomes the hypothesis, and the write-up implies the prediction came first. In science it inflates false positive rates and makes results unreproducible; in business review it converts luck into apparent skill and destroys the value of the retrospective.
SCAFFOLDING EFFECT
Reduce cognitive load
- Pre-register: write the hypothesis and the success criteria before the project begins. - Compare against the record: evaluate outcomes against the original prediction rather than a revised one. - Credit luck honestly: label a success reached by an unintended route as luck, not competence.
Anchor fast decisions
Any dataset contains patterns that arise by chance, so searching after the fact guarantees finding something to explain. Presenting that pattern as a prior prediction removes the statistical penalty for multiple comparisons and conceals the search. The result is a claim that appears to have been tested but was actually generated by the same data it claims to explain.
MINIMUM ACTION
In progress 0/1Practice this model in one real situation:
account_treeGenealogyexpand_more
menu_bookReferencesexpand_more
Source support: Explicit
- en.wikipedia.orghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HARKingverified
PRIVATE NOTES · Only visible to you
SAVED Q&A
ENTRY Q&A · Private saving available
Ask with a clear boundary
thinkingmodels answers from published entry context only.
Your question is sent to thinkingmodels. The answer uses public entry context only.
RELATED MODELS