Harking, Sharking, and Tharking: Making the Case for Post Hoc Analysis of Scientific Data

Journal of Management

Volumn 43, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 5-18

  Hollenbeck, John R ^a   Wright, Patrick M ^b  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

macro topics; micro topics; philosophy of science; research design; research methods; statistical methods

Indexed keywords

EID: 85003991268     PISSN: 01492063     EISSN: 15571211     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0149206316679487     Document Type: Editorial

References (23)

1. Atwater L. E., Mumford M. D., Schriesheim C. A., Yammarino F. J., 2014. Retraction of leadership articles: Causes and prevention. Leadership Quarterly, 25: 1174-1180.
2. Bhattacharjee Y., 2013, April 26. The mind of a con man. The New York Times.
3. Bosco F. A., Aguinis H., Field J. G., Pierce C. A., Dalton D. R., 2015. Harking’s threat to organizational research: Evidence from primary and meta-analytic sources. Personnel Psychology, 2015: 1-42. doi:10.1111/peps.12111
4. Cohen J., 1992. A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112: 155-159.
5. Collingwood R. G., 1940. An essay on metaphysics. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
6. Dunbar K. N., Fuselsang J., 2005. Causal thinking in science: How scientists and students interpret the unexpected. In Gorman M. E., Tweney R. D., Gooding D. C., Kincannon A. P., (Eds), Scientific and technical thinking: 57-80. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7. Engber D., 2016. Everything is crumbling. Slate. Available from http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/cover_story/2016/03/ego_depletion_an_influential_theory_in_psychology_may_have_just_been_debunked.html
8. Fanelli D., 2013. Redefine misconduct as distorted reporting. Nature News, 494: 149. doi:10.1038/494149a
9. Hambrick D. C., 2007. The field of management’s devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing? Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1346-1352.
10. Hitchcock C., Sober E., 2004. Prediction versus accommodation and the risk of overfitting. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 55: 1-34.
11. Hollenbeck J. R., DeRue D. S., Mannor M., 2006. Statistical power and parameter stability when subjects are few and tests are many: Revisiting the relationships between CEO personality and firm performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 1-5.
12. Kerr N. L., 1998. HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 2: 196-217.
13. Kuhn T. S., 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
14. Maxwell S. E., 2004. The persistence of underpowered studies in psychological research: Causes, consequences, and remedies. Psychological Methods, 9: 147-163.
15. Maxwell S. E., Lau M. Y., Howard G. S., 2015. Is psychology suffering from a replication crisis? What does “failure to replicate” really mean? American Psychologist, 70: 487-498.
16. McClelland G. H., 1997. Optimal design in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 2: 3.
17. Murnighan J. K., 2002. A very extreme case of the dollar auction. Journal of Management Education, 26: 56-69.
18. Rosenthal R., 1994. Science and ethics in conducting, analyzing, and reporting psychological research. Psychological Science, 5: 127-134.
19. Schmidt F. L., 1996. Statistical significance testing and cumulative knowledge in psychology: Implications for training of researchers. Psychological Methods, 1: 115-129.
20. Simon H. A., 1957. Models of man, social and rational: Mathematical essays on rational human behavior in a social setting. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
21. Wade Nicholas., 2010, August 20. Harvard finds Marc Hauser guilty of scientific misconduct. The New York Times.
22. Wade N., Sang-Hoon C., 2006, January 10. Researcher faced evidence of human cloning, Koreans report. The New York Times.
23. Weick K. E., 1995. Sensemaking in organizations, Vol. 3. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.