From the Chronicle of Higher Education: The journal Psychological Science... retracted a 2002 research paper co-authored by Dan Ariely, the influential but increasingly scrutinized Duke University professor, after the blog Data Colada reported earlier this week that the study contains fabricated data. The paper, on which Ariely shared authorship with Klaus Wertenbroch, found that subjects responded better to externally imposed deadlines than self-imposed ones, and has been cited over 2,000 times on Google Scholar. The retraction is the latest in a series of scandals that have dogged Ariely. Earlier reporting by Data Colada led to the 2021 retraction of another study he had co-authored, and data sleuths have cast doubt on more of his past research...
...The three professors who run Data Colada detailed several points of evidence showing that the 2002 deadlines study contains doctored data. Many participants’ results in the dataset were identical, suggesting data points had been duplicated or faked. Results that should be highly correlated — for instance, participants who said they liked the task would be expected to also report finding it interesting — showed no signs of correlation.
...In 2021, Data Colada documented evidence of fraud in a 2012 study Ariely had co-authored that also failed to replicate. Another author on the study was Francesca Gino, whose tenure was revoked by Harvard Business School after the data sleuths found a pattern of data fraud across several of her studies.* ...Duke announced [in January] it was closing Ariely’s lab, alongside several other centers, a decision the university said was made the previous December...
Full story at https://www.chronicle.com/article/data-sleuths-found-evidence-of-fraud-in-another-dan-ariely-study-now-its-being-retracted.
====
*The Harvard Crimson reports pre-trial maneuvering in the Gino case is ongoing as a December 7 trial date approaches:
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2026/9/9/harvard-gino-trial-near/.
No comments:
Post a Comment