Casciaro, T; Gino, F; Kouchaki, M (2014) 'The Contaminating Effects Of Building Instrumental Ties: How Networking Can Make Us Feel Dirty' , Administrative Science Quarterly
This page contains a summary table for data provenance for all studies in this paper.
In addition, authors can share with readers information on why they decided to retract or not retract, plans and/or results
for replication efforts, reflections on the process, or anything at all they feel is relevant. They may revise the information
provided as often as desired, and each author is free to present a message of their own, though authors are encouraged to speak
in one voice.
Aggregate responses
Wording of Question Answered by Co-Authors
Question 1: Data Collection Please indicate whether Francesca Gino was involved in
collecting the data for each study. For example, if the study was run on her
Qualtrics account, or she managed the (non-author) research assistant(s)
who ran the study, or she received the data provided by a third party. Please also provide
additional information for the subset of studies where she was involved.
Wording of Question Answered by Co-Authors
Question 2: Have you ever had access to the raw data?
By raw we mean exactly as it was collected. This can mean having
access to the Qualtrics data on the server, having physical copies
of paper-and-pencil files, having a dataset that was sent by a
third party, etc.
Wording of Question Answered by Co-Authors
Question 3: Do you have the data necessary to reproduce the published results?
Answer yes even if due to an error or some other reason the data you have do not actually
successfully reproduce the published results. It's OK not to post the data, it's OK to
post it only later, it's OK saying 'not sure' today and revising in the future.
Gino involved in data collection?
Co-authors have/had raw data?
Data for reproducing results available?
Study 1
Yes (2)
No (2)
Only authors (2)
Study 2
No (2)
N/A (2)
N/A (2)
Study 3
No (2)
N/A (2)
N/A (2)
Study 4
No (2)
N/A (2)
N/A (2)
Individual Responses
Tiziana Casciaro
Gino involved in data collection?
Co-authors have/had raw data?
Data for reproducing results available?
Study 1
Yes
Never
Yes, but not posted
Study 2
No
--
--
Study 3
No
--
--
Study 4
No
--
--
Maryam Kouchaki
Gino involved in data collection?
Co-authors have/had raw data?
Data for reproducing results available?
Study 1
Yes
Never
Yes, but not posted
Study 2
No
--
--
Study 3
No
--
--
Study 4
No
--
--
Below is a message written by author(s) of this paper. Keep in mind it may be modified at any time.
Written by: Maryam Kouchaki Last update: 2024-04-08
2014 “The Contaminating Effects of Building Instrumental Ties: How Networking Can Make Us Feel Dirty.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(4): 705–735. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839214554990
The Journal Editors of Administrative Science Quarterly and the authors would like to alert readers to the following corrections in this study. Broad concerns in the research community drew our attention to this article. Two of the authors, Tiziana Casciaro and Maryam Kouchaki, voluntarily came forward with the data from Study 2, Study 3, and Study 4, including direct access to the original survey data on Qualtrics, and asked ASQ to conduct an independent review of the data. ASQ appointed an anonymous committee to download and re-analyze the original data that was provided. The original data from Study 1 were not available.
The review reproduced all the results of Study 2, Study 3, and Study 4 as reported in the article, with the following addendum and corrigenda:
1.
Study 3: eight of the 165 participants started the survey twice but completed it only once. In the dataset used for the analyses, the authors included only the complete entry of each of these eight participants and discarded their incomplete entry.
2.
Study 3: on page 720, the statement that the indicator variables for the five office locations of the law firm “never had statistically significant effects in any of the regression models” is correct for the models predicting networking frequency. However, two of the office locations had statistically significant effects in models predicting billable hours. Supplemental path models predicting billable hours with controls for those two office locations, as well as the law practice that had statistically significant effects on billable hours, did not change the key findings.
3.
Study 4: a coding error affected 2 of the 149 participants. The interaction effect of networking content (personal vs. professional) by power (high vs. low) on preference for cleansing products became marginally significant F(1, 132) = 3.30, p = .072 once the error was corrected.
The editors of ASQ appreciate the cooperation of authors Tiziana Casciaro and Maryam Kouchaki in this review and their providing the original data they had available.
