Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T11:06:44.375Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Publication Bias Might Make Us Untrustworthy, But the Solutions May Be Worse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Keith Leavitt
Keith Leavitt*
Affiliation:
Oregon State University
*
E-mail: [email protected], Address: College of Business, Oregon State University, 338 Bexell Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331-2603
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , September 2013 , pp. 290 - 295
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bargh, J. A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 230–244.Google Scholar
Barrick, M. R., & Zimmerman, R. D. (2005). Reducing voluntary, avoidable turnover through selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 159–166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the social sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Doyen, S., Klein, O., Pichon, C.-L., & Cleeremans, A. (2012). Behavioral priming: It's all in the mind, but whose mind? PLoS ONE, 7, e29081. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0029081CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferguson, C. J., & Brannick, M. T. (2012). Publication bias in psychological science: Prevalence, methods for identifying and controlling, and implications for the use of meta-analyses. Psychological Methods, 17, 120–128.Google Scholar
Kepes, S., & McDaniel, M. A. (2013). How trustworthy is the scientific literature in I-O psychology? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 6(3), 252–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaBeouf, R. A., Shafir, E., & Bayuk, J. B. (2010). The conflicting choices of alternating selves. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 111, 48–61.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1978). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In J. Worrall & G. Currie (Eds.), The methodology of scientific research programmes, Philosophical papers vol. I by Imre Lakatos. UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leavitt, K., Mitchell, T., & Peterson, J. (2010). Theory pruning: Strategies for reducing our dense theoretical landscape. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 644–667.Google Scholar
Lehrer, J. (2010). The truth wears off. New Yorker, 86, 52–57.Google Scholar
Mitchell, T. R., & James, L. R. (2001). Building better theory: Time and the specification of when things happen. Academy of Management Review, 26, 530–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pashler, H., Harris, C., & Coburn, N. (2008). Failed replication of Bargh et al. 1996. Psychfiledrawer.org.on Social and Food Judgments. PLoS ONE 7(8), e42510, unpublished.Google Scholar
Rosnow, R. L., & Rosenthal, R. (1989). Statistical procedures and the justification of knowledge in psychological science. American Psychologist, 44, 1276–1284.Google Scholar