3 ms·
The post you link uncovers apparent frauds in research from 2012 and 2020. Ariely's reply says that he received the data in good faith, and that it was provided
by austinjp 3y ago
The post you link uncovers apparent frauds in research from 2012 and 2020. Ariely's reply says that he received the data in good faith, and that it was provided by private insurance companies. He also thanks the post authors for their work.
This doesn't paint him as a fraud, but as a victim of fraud.
- wigl 3y agoThere's been enough follow-up on this case to come to the conclusion that he fabricated the data. The Hartford insurance company's statement contradicts his claim. The PNAS study was retracted after the Data Colada article and there are anomalies in his other work. [0]: https://openmkt.org/blog/2023/everyone-involved-in-dan-arielys-fake-data-scandal-now-has-an-alibi-except-for-ariely-himself/ https://openmkt.org/blog/2023/everyone-involved-in-dan-ariel... [1]: https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/08/19/a-scandal-in-tedhemia-noted-study-in-psychology-first-fails-to-replicate-but-is-still-promoted-by-npr-then-crumbles-with-striking-evidence-of-data-fraud/ https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/08/19/a-scandal-... [2]: https://www.npr.org/2023/07/27/1190568472/dan-ariely-francesca-gino-harvard-dishonesty-fabricated-data https://www.npr.org/2023/07/27/1190568472/dan-ariely-frances... > It is clear the data was manipulated inappropriately and supplemented by synthesized or fabricated data.
- austinjp 3y agoOh dear, far more damning. Thanks for the links.