Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
The practice of hypothesizing after results are known (HARKing) has been identified as a potential threat to the credibility of research results. We conducted simulations using input values based on comprehensive meta-analyses and reviews in applied psychology and management (e.g., strategic management studies) to determine the extent to which two forms of HARKing behaviors might plausibly bias study outcomes and to examine the determinants of the size of this effect. When HARKing involves cherry-picking, which consists of searching through data involving alternative measures or samples to find the results that offer the strongest possible support for a particular hypothesis or research question, HARKing has only a small effect on estimates of the population effect size. When HARKing involves question trolling, which consists of searching through data involving several different constructs, measures of those constructs, interventions, or relationships to find seemingly notable results worth writing about, HARKing produces substantial upward bias particularly when it is prevalent and there are many effects from which to choose. Results identify the precise circumstances under which different forms of HARKing behaviors are more or less likely to have a substantial impact on a study’s substantive conclusions and the field’s cumulative knowledge. We offer suggestions for authors, consumers of research, and reviewers and editors on how to understand, minimize, detect, and deter detrimental forms of HARKing in future research.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Aguinis, H., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2014). An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure: Improving research quality before data collection. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 569–595. CrossRef
Aguinis, H., Werner, S., Abbott, J. L., Angert, C., Park, J. H., & Kohlhausen, D. (2010). Customer-centric science: Reporting significant research results with rigor, relevance, and practical impact in mind. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 515–539. CrossRef
Aguinis, H., Dalton, D. R., Bosco, F. A., Pierce, C. A., & Dalton, C. M. (2011). Meta-analytic choices and judgment calls: Implications for theory building and testing, obtained effect sizes, and scholarly impact. Journal of Management, 37, 5–38. CrossRef
Aguinis, H., Shapiro, D. L., Antonacopoulou, E., & Cummings, T. G. (2014). Scholarly impact: A pluralist conceptualization. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 13, 623–639. CrossRef
Aguinis, H., Cascio, W. F., & Ramani, R. S. (2017). Science’s reproducibility and replicability crisis: International business is not immune. Journal of International Business Studies, 48, 653–663. CrossRef
Aguinis, H., Ramani, R. S., & Alabduljader, N. (in press). What you see is what you get? Enhancing methodological transparency in management research. Academy of Management Annals. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0011.
Bamberger, P., & Ang, S. (2016). The quantitative discovery: What is it and how to get it published. Academy of Management Discoveries, 2, 1–6. CrossRef
Banks, G. C., O’Boyle, E. H., Pollack, J. M., White, C. D., Batchelor, J. H., Whelpley, C. E., …, Adkins, C. L. (2016a). Questions about questionable research practices in the field of management: A guest commentary. Journal of Management, 42, 5–20.
Banks, G. C., Rogelberg, S. G., Woznyj, H. M., Landis, R. S., & Rupp, D. E. (2016b). Editorial: Evidence on questionable research practices: The good, the bad and the ugly. Journal of Business and Psychology, 31, 323–338. CrossRef
Bedeian, A. G., Taylor, S. G., & Miller, A. N. (2010). Management science on the credibility bubble: Cardinal sins and various misdemeanors. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9, 715–725.
Bergh, D. D., Aguinis, H., Heavey, C., Ketchen, D. J., Boyd, B. K., Su, P., Lau, C., & Joo, H. (2016). Using meta-analytic structural equation modeling to advance strategic management research: Guidelines and an empirical illustration via the strategic leadership-performance relationship. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 477–497. CrossRef
Bergh, D. D., Sharp, B. M., Aguinis, H., & Li, M. (2017). Is there a credibility crisis in strategic management research? Evidence on the reproducibility of study findings. Strategic Organization, 15, 423–436. CrossRef
Bernerth, J., & Aguinis, H. (2016). A critical review and best-practice recommendations for control variable usage. Personnel Psychology, 69, 229–283. CrossRef
Bettis, R. A., Ethiraj, S., Gambardella, A., Helfat, C., & Mitchell, W. (2016). Creating repeatable cumulative knowledge in strategic management: A call for a broad and deep conversation among authors, referees, and editors. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 257–261. CrossRef
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley. CrossRef
Bosco, F. A., Aguinis, H., Singh, K., Field, J. G., & Pierce, C. A. (2015). Correlational effect size benchmarks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 431–449. CrossRef
Bosco, F. A., Aguinis, H., Field, J. G., Pierce, C. A., & Dalton, D. R. (2016). HARKing’s threat to organizational research: Evidence from primary and meta-analytic sources. Personnel Psychology, 69, 709–750. CrossRef
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cortina, J. M., & Landis, R. S. (2009). When small effect sizes tell a big story, and when large effect sizes don’t. In C. E. Lance & R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Doctrine, verity, and fable in the organizational and social sciences (pp. 287–308). New York: Routledge.
Cortina, J. M., Aguinis, H., & DeShon, R. P. (2017). Twilight of dawn or of evening? A century of research methods in the Journal of Applied Psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 274–290. CrossRef
Derksen, S., & Keselman, H. J. (1992). Backward, forward and stepwise automated subset selection algorithms: Frequency of obtaining authentic and noise variables. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 45, 265–282. CrossRef
Edwards, J. R., Berry JW. (2010). The presence of something or the absence of nothing: Increasing theoretical precision in management research. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 668–689. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428110380467
Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One, 4, e5738. CrossRef
Fisher, G., & Aguinis, H. (2017). Using theory elaboration to make theoretical advancements. Organizational Research Methods, 20, 438–464. CrossRef
Grand, J. A., Rogelberg, S. G., Allen, T. D., Landis, R. S., Reynolds, D. H., Scott, J. C., Tonidandel, S., & Truxillo, D. M. (in press). A systems-based approach to fostering robust science in industrial-organizational psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice.
Hambrick DC. (2007). The field of management’s devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing? Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1346–1352. http://doi.org/10.2307/20159476
Harrell, H. (2011). Regression modeling strategies with applications to linear models, logistic regression and survival analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Hayduk, L. A. (1987). Structural equation modeling with LISREL: Essentials and advances. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hitchcock, C., & Sober, E. (2004). Prediction versus accommodation and the risk of overfitting. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 55, 1–34. CrossRef
Hollenbeck, J. H., & Wright, P. M. (2017). Harking, sharking, and tharking: Making the case for post hoc analysis of scientific data. Journal of Management, 43, 5–18. CrossRef
Honig, B., Lampel, J., Siegel, D., & Drnevich, P. (2014). Ethics in the production and dissemination of management research: Institutional failure or individual fallibility. Journal of Management Studies, 51, 118–142. CrossRef
Hubbard R, Armstrong JS. (1997). Publication bias against null results. Psychological Reports, 80, 337–338. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1922.214.171.1247
Jensen, A. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York: Free Press.
John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth-telling. Psychological Science, 23, 524–532. CrossRef
Judd, C. M., & McClelland, G. H. (1989). Data analysis: A model comparison approach. New York: Harcourt.
Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 2, 196. CrossRef
Ketchen, D. J., Boyd, B. K., & Bergh, D. D. (2008). Research methodology in strategic management past accomplishments and future challenges. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 643–658. CrossRef
Ketchen, D. J., Ireland, R. D., & Baker, L. T. (2013). The use of archival proxies in strategic management studies: Castles made of sand? Organizational Research Methods, 16, 32–42. CrossRef
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Landers, R. N., Brusso, R. C., Cavanaugh, K. J., & Collmus, A. B. (2016). A primer on theory-driven web scraping: Automatic extraction of big data from the Internet for use in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 21, 475–492. CrossRef
Landis, R. S., Edwards, B. D., & Cortina, J. M. (2009). On the practice of allowing correlated residuals among indicators in structural equation models. In C. E. Lance & R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Doctrine, verity and fable in the organizational and social sciences (pp. 193–214). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Leung, K. (2011). Presenting post hoc hypotheses as a priori: Ethical and theoretical issues. Management and Organization Review, 7, 471–479. CrossRef
Lipton, P. (2005). Testing hypotheses: Prediction and prejudice. Science, 307, 219–221. CrossRef
Lo, A. W., & MacKinlay, A. C. (1990). Data-snooping biases in tests of financial asset pricing models. Review of Financial Studies, 3, 431–467. CrossRef
Locke, E. A. (2007). The case for inductive theory building. Journal of Management, 33, 867–890. CrossRef
Locke, K., Golden-Biddle, K., & Feldman, M. S. (2008). Perspective-making doubt generative: Rethinking the role of doubt in the research process. Organization Science, 19, 907–918. CrossRef
Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational and goal-oriented perspectives. Newbury Park: Sage.
Neuroskeptic. (2012). The nine circles of scientific hell. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 643–644. CrossRef
O’Boyle, E. H., Banks, G. C., & Gonzalez-Mulé, E. (2017). The chrysalis effect: How ugly initial results metamorphosize into beautiful articles. Journal of Management, 43, NPi. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527133.
Orlitzky M. (2012). How can significance tests be deinstitutionalized? Organizational Research Methods, 15, 199–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428111428356
Pfeffer J. (2007). A modest proposal: How we might change the process and prod- uct of managerial research. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1334–1345. https://doi.org//10.2307/20159475
Pigliucci, M. (2009). The end of theory in science? EMBO Reports, 10, 534. CrossRef
Shaw, J. B. (2017). Advantages of starting with theory. Academy of Management Journal, 60, 819–822. CrossRef
Shen, W., Kiger, T. B., Davies, S. E., Rasch, R. L., Simon, K. M., & Ones, D. S. (2011). Samples in applied psychology: Over a decade of research in review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1055–1064. CrossRef
Sörbom, D. (1989). Model modification. Psychometrika, 54, 371–384. CrossRef
Thurstone, L. L. (1934). The vectors of the mind. American Psychologist, 41, 1–32.
Tonidandel, S., King, E. B., & Cortina, J. M. (Eds.). (2016). Big data at work: The data science revolution and organizational psychology. New York: Routledge.
Wasserman, R. (2013). Ethical issues and guidelines for conducting data analysis in psychological research. Ethics and Behavior, 23, 3–15. CrossRef
White R. (2003). The epistemic advantage of prediction over accommodation. Mind, 112, 653–683. https://doi.10.1093/mind/112.448.653
Wilkinson, L., & Task Force on Statistical Inference. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54, 594–604. CrossRef
Wing, H. (1982). Statistical hazards in the determination of adverse impact with small samples. Personnel Psychology, 35, 153–162. CrossRef
Wright, P. M. (2016). Ensuring research integrity: An editor’s perspective. Journal of Management, 42, 1037–1043. CrossRef
- HARKing: How Badly Can Cherry-Picking and Question Trolling Produce Bias in Published Results?
Kevin R. Murphy
- Springer US
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta