ABSTRACT
Research in hypothesis generation suggests that people might act as satisficers and be less likely to generate plausible alternative hypotheses when they already have a hypothesis that accounts for the data in hand. Three experiments simulated scientific hypothesis development. In all 3, participants who had been given a hypothesis consistent with available data generated proportionally fewer of the simplest alternative hypotheses than participants given no such satisficing hypothesis. Furthermore, participant satisficing occurred regardless of whether the provided hypothesis was generated a priori or post hoc and despite high incentives for completeness. Limitations and implications of these findings are discussed for hypothesis development and the practice of taking post hoc hypotheses suggested by one's results and presenting them as a priori hypotheses.
