A well-known study on dishonesty is based on lie news, which, ironically, is almost perfect.this LearnPublished in 2012, it aims to show that when people promise to be honest before filling out the insurance form, they are more likely to tell the truth on the insurance form. This is a very simple discovery and has countless practical applications. Obviously, this is also the lower bunk.

The research that once caused applause has not passed.

This revelation has brought the high-profile research of Duke University professor of psychology and behavioral economics Dan Allili under scrutiny. Ariely is known for performing clever experiments to analyze human weakness and felonies.He is the author of best-selling books such as Foreseeable irrationality: the hidden power that affects our decision-making with The honest truth about dishonesty: how we lie to everyone-especially to ourselvesHe is a fascinating speaker with a fascinating personal story; his TED talks have accumulated more than 20 million views. The 54-year-old is also the co-founder of several companies that use his research insights.

Ariely is a big deal in behavioral economics and other fields. Therefore, the fact that one of his famous research findings is nonsense is worth noting.But what is more worrying is that according to a Statistics check one by one To Data Colada’s cold-eyed detective, the numbers in the research discussed appear to be fabricated. And, at least so far, Ariely’s explanation of what happened has been unsatisfactory. The scientist has been trying to recall the year and form of the data he received. There are also signs that there are early red flags, but Ariely assured the co-authors that everything is fine. As a result, this false discovery was published in a paper that is now widely cited and summarized in one of Ariely’s best-selling books, and touted as an easy way to solve the tendency of liars.

For the past decade or so, psychology in particular—although the problem extends to other disciplines—has been suspicious of some of its brightest discoveries. Mainly due to the unfortunate combination of poor incentives, sloppy methods and lack of transparency. Once upon a time, you could set up an experiment in a few subjects, run it multiple times until you get the results you want, and then publish it in a well-known journal. The reporter will report it without any concealment. Literary agents will encourage you to enrich your findings with anecdotes and suggestions. Then readers incorporate all this scientifically recognized wisdom into their daily lives.

Then there is the crisis of replication. Skeptical researchers began to poke holes in many of these beautiful discoveries. When the same experiment is tried with more subjects or stricter controls, incredible conclusions often disappear. There is now more discussion about the necessity of sharing data, rather than covering up the flaws and false start of experiments.The replication crisis drove the open science movement, which does not mean that a lot of bad science still has not passed peer review-just read Retract the watch If you want evidence-but it does mean that the research that once caused applause has not passed.

Also exposed are some outright frauds. Perhaps the most shocking example is the work of the Dutch researcher Diederik Stapel, who falsified dozens of studies, fabricated data for experiments that had never been carried out, and in the process became Celebrity researcher. Stapel’s lie caught up with him, but, boy, it took a while.When I Interviewed him In 2015, a few years after graduation, he felt punished and reflected. “It’s about ambition, about status, about being integrated into society, about trying to change the world,” Stapel told me at the time.Another typical example is Michael LaCour, whose much-publicized same-sex marriage survey is Pure fiction.

It is unfair to assume that everything that happened in Ariely’s research is at the same level as LaCour or Stapel. They both blatantly deceived colleagues and reviewers. Ariely says A statement Said to Data Colada that he did not suspect that there was a problem with the data, and that he “has not tested whether the data is in violation of regulations. After experiencing this painful lesson, I will start to do so on a regular basis.” He wrote that these figures are “by the company”. Collect, enter, merge and anonymize, and then send it to me.” In the same statement, he also stated that he agreed with the authors of Data Colada, who concluded that the data was fabricated.

This seems to put the blame on the insurance company, which did not name it in the paper, but buzzing The confirmed is Hartford, Connecticut. The company stated in a statement, “From 2007 to 2008, Dr. Ariely had a small project, but we were unable to find any data, deliverables, or results that might be produced.” According to Ariely’s book, The honest truth about dishonestyAfter that, he spent a day meeting with the company’s “senior people” and threw out a bunch of ideas for collaborative research projects. Hartford’s lawyers killed them all.

Ariely wrote that his “contact” at the insurance company later got in touch and stated that the professor could modify the form sent to the customer so that they could record the odometer reading on their car. “The company gave us 20,000 forms, and we used them to test our ideas for top and bottom signatures,” he wrote. Surprisingly, the company did not provide records of large amounts of data to well-known Duke researchers. No email? No confidentiality agreement? No?

Since the credibility of the research has been questioned, Ariely probably knows the names of contacts who can help fill in some of the gaps. The statement issued by his co-authors indicated that they were frustrated with the results of all this. Max Bazeman, Professor of Business Administration at Harvard University, Write As early as 2011, he was worried about the “unbelievable data” in the insurance form research and asked about this at the time. He wrote that the co-author was “in charge of this part of the work”—it must be Ariely—”and quickly showed me the data files on the laptop; I did not and did not let others examine the data more closely.”

Another co-author, Nina Mazar, professor of marketing at Boston University, Write Before reading Data Colada’s post, she “has no idea that the insurance data is forged.” She went on to write that she had no contact with the insurance company and did not know “when, how, or by whom the data was collected and entered.” Based on the file’s metadata, Ariely created an Excel spreadsheet in 2011—assuming the company’s date. Correct, he will meet with employees in Hartford for many years. (Ariely did not respond to an interview request, and several of his co-authors declined to be interviewed.)

Here is what we know so far: This paper is written by Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Will be withdrawn. A Duke University spokesperson confirmed that the university’s Office of Scientific Integrity is investigating, although the office did not require public disclosure of its findings. Whether Ariely herself has more to say remains to be seen.

In a sense, this is yet another frustrating story about a compelling study that collapsed after careful scrutiny. At the same time, if you are looking for a silver lining, this is another story about how researchers can better detect and expose this kind of deception.This proves the importance of copying: if the researcher does not try (and fails), the fraud in this case may never be exposed Copy discovery Use more subjects. This is further proof that it seems that more is needed, and scientists need to share their data on a regular basis. If Ariely were asked to show the data to his co-authors and publish it on the Internet along with the research, it is unlikely that the problem would go undiscovered within ten years.

Ariely wrote at the end of his book on dishonesty that all of us “are capable of cheating, and we are very good at telling ourselves why we are not dishonest or unethical when doing so.” Given this, if every With less trust and more verification by individuals, science will be served well.

Source link