Living #95 | Many Co-Authors
Paper #95

Simonsohn, U; Gino, F (2013) 'Daily Horizons: Evidence Of Narrow Bracketing In Judgment From 10 Years Of M.b.a. Admissions Interviews' , Psychological Science  

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

Gino involved in data collection?
Co-authors have/had raw data?
Data for reproducing results available?
Single Study Yes (1)
Yes (1)
Only authors (1)

Individual Responses

Uri Simonsohn
Gino involved in data collection? Co-authors have/had raw data? Data for reproducing results available?
Single StudyYesYes, and still doYes, but not posted

Below is a message written by author(s) of this paper. Keep in mind it may be modified at any time.
Written by: Uri Simonsohn
Last update: 2023-09-04

I believe these data were not tampered with and am thus not currently planning to retract the article.
I detailed my partial assessment below, i plan to return to it later in the Fall of 2023:

  1. The data analyzed in this paper were provided by the admissions office of an unnamed university.
  2. I contacted the current staff of that admissions office seeking to verify the files still in my possession, they indicated that they have switched to a new data platform and no longer have access to the old records (the data are from 2001-2009).
  3. I attempted to contact the individual who provided the data to Francesca, a former employee from the university, but she did not reply to the (linkedIn message).  I plan on following up with her in the future.
  4. The data were provided to me by Francesca via (10) email attachments. I still have those emails. Analyzing the timestamps in the Excel file attachments I observed that with one exception, the files were created and last edited at the same time (i.e., no room for being edited).  The sole exception is the first file in the set, which was last edited 14 minutes after being created.
  5. The files contain 1000s of observations including names, GMAT scores, time of interviews and name of interviewer suggesting the data are real. I verified via Google searches that many students appearing in the file attended the university that provided the data (many applicants naturally were not accepted and some who were did not enroll).
  6. It would have been difficult, but far from impossible, to manufacture the documented effect as it is estimated from a regression that predicts a current interview score, with previous interview scores given by an interviewer earlier that day.
  7. Examining the file "shared strings.xml" (like calcchain.xml, a file that is used by Excel to put together a spreadsheet), the order in which the rows appear in the spreadsheet is the same order in which they were entered into the spreadsheet.
  8. I plan later in the Fall of 2023 to give these files a closer look, for now there is no indication of tampering.