3 ms·

In the comment threads here I see a lot of cynicism and blame directed at the research team, especially Dan Ariely. And I agree that they, and social science re

In the comment threads here I see a lot of cynicism and blame directed at the research team, especially Dan Ariely. And I agree that they, and social science researchers in general, need to do more exploratory analysis to validate their data instead of just blindly feeding the sausage into some hypothesis test. But it's hard to believe that any of them knew about the fabrication, because they published the data used to discover the fabrication. They did so voluntarily and not under any duress. If Ariely were involved in the fraud, wouldn't he have resisted the move to publish the data? It is very easy for researchers to make up excuses to not share data, and very difficult to force them to do so. In the absence of an answer to this question, I find it easier to believe in shenanigans at the company. I agree it's hard to imagine what their motivation was, but it's even harder to understand why the researchers published their data so readily if one of them fabricated it. The incompetence of the fraud doesn't really push me one way or the other. Industry and academia are definitely both extremely capable of doing incompetent, dishonest nonsense with data.

function_seven 5y ago
I agree that the inept way the data was fabricated doesn’t point in one direction or the other. But as to the willingness to release the underlying XLS file, it’s also consistent with the other coauthors looking to distance themselves from their cheating partner. If “the fourth author” sincerely believed in the effect of top-first pledges, he’d assume a replication attempt would make legitimate the “shortcut” his younger self took. When the original results failed to replicate, and the world started looking for the original data, being the only member of the original team to object to releasing it would make things even worse when the fraud eventually was uncovered. Easier to roll with it and work on discrediting the source instead. Okay, so that last paragraph is pure speculation. But people—even smart people!—do nonsensical things all the time. “If he was guilty, why would he do X?” is rarely a good defense. All that being said, I’m still more likely to believe the fabrication was done by someone at the insurance company. But it would be better if we got more detail on who Dan was working with. Or the exact method of data delivery. (The file in question shows Dan as the original creator in metadata, and has the Cambria/Calibri issue. How exactly did that happen?) Not holding my breath on that, though.
DominikPeters 5y ago
At least one other coauthor also had the data, which would have made it more awkward to withhold it. Still, this argument overall does point towards none of the authors knowing that the data was made up.

function_seven 5y ago

I agree that the inept way the data was fabricated doesn’t point in one direction or the other. But as to the willingness to release the underlying XLS file, it’s also consistent with the other coauthors looking to distance themselves from their cheating partner. If “the fourth author” sincerely believed in the effect of top-first pledges, he’d assume a replication attempt would make legitimate the “shortcut” his younger self took. When the original results failed to replicate, and the world started looking for the original data, being the only member of the original team to object to releasing it would make things even worse when the fraud eventually was uncovered. Easier to roll with it and work on discrediting the source instead. Okay, so that last paragraph is pure speculation. But people—even smart people!—do nonsensical things all the time. “If he was guilty, why would he do X?” is rarely a good defense. All that being said, I’m still more likely to believe the fabrication was done by someone at the insurance company. But it would be better if we got more detail on who Dan was working with. Or the exact method of data delivery. (The file in question shows Dan as the original creator in metadata, and has the Cambria/Calibri issue. How exactly did that happen?) Not holding my breath on that, though.

DominikPeters 5y ago

At least one other coauthor also had the data, which would have made it more awkward to withhold it. Still, this argument overall does point towards none of the authors knowing that the data was made up.