Prof studying honesty fabricates findings

[Dismal]

It will almost certainly be thrown out but the damage will be done.

https://www.science.org/content/article/honesty-researcher-facing-fraud-concerns-sues-harvard-and-accusers-25-million

Her argument that it was unfair that Harvard created a new policy just for her investigation that wasn't approved using the usual channels might have some validity. Some people are predicting she will get a smaller settlement and then move on.

[Diogenes]

Some people are predicting she will get a smaller settlement and then move on.

Here's a real behavioral economic principle: A golden parachute that allows someone to retire early as a multi-millionaire is not a punishment for dishonesty.

[apl68]

Well, Diogenes, I guess you just need to get the lamp back out and keep looking....

[spork]

NYT profile of Gino and Harvard's fraud investigation:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/30/business/the-harvard-professor-and-the-bloggers.html.

The journalist who wrote the story doesn't know the difference between social sciences, economics, psychology, and business schools. And he skips over the most damning details of Data Colada's findings. But at least Gino's partner in crime, Ariely, is mentioned.

[Sun_Worshiper]

NYT profile of Gino and Harvard's fraud investigation:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/30/business/the-harvard-professor-and-the-bloggers.html.

The journalist who wrote the story doesn't know the difference between social sciences, economics, psychology, and business schools. And he skips over the most damning details of Data Colada's findings. But at least Gino's partner in crime, Ariely, is mentioned.

This wasn't as bad as the Amy Cuddy piece and nowhere near as embarrassing as the one on Elizabeth Holmes, but I will never understand why the NYT rewards every fraudster with a fawning profile? Is this really what readers are clamoring for?

I'd like to know more about this groundbreaking research though:

In 2010, they and a third colleague published a paper that found that people cheated more when they wore counterfeit designer sunglasses.

Behavioral economists of the fora, if we have any, please tell us how anyone (the authors, journal editors, reviewers) thought this was a research project worth pursuing and publishing.

[ab_grp]

Thanks for posting the NYT article! I will check it out, though I am not happy to hear that it's a fawning profile. 

I also haven't had a chance yet to take a close look at it (on today's agenda), but Gino has apparently started posting her own defense against the Data Colada investigation.  Not sure if that's wise in a legal sense, but here it is for those interested: https://www.francesca-v-harvard.org/data-colada-post-1

[Langue_doc]

There's also an article in the New Yorker, but I can't access it since I didn't bother to renew my subscription. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/09/they-studied-dishonesty-was-their-work-a-lie?utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Daily_093023&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_medium=email&utm_term=tny_daily_digest&bxid=62d8acc6960140516803d609&cndid=70319751&hasha=349c6abacc09730a88f6caaeae2eed71&hashb=050f79a4b8506ace65c077d4adca3a1b9dd80d69&hashc=111c4ba74b9d09f997a5922b6fb90b62e8613057488e25f04b293b87e81614c4&esrc=UP_EMAIL_POSTED&mbid=CRMNYR012019

I too thought that this was entertainment-related rather than academic research.

I'd like to know more about this groundbreaking research though:

Quote
In 2010, they and a third colleague published a paper that found that people cheated more when they wore counterfeit designer sunglasses.

Behavioral economists of the fora, if we have any, please tell us how anyone (the authors, journal editors, reviewers) thought this was a research project worth pursuing and publishing.

[ciao_yall]

There's also an article in the New Yorker, but I can't access it since I didn't bother to renew my subscription. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/09/they-studied-dishonesty-was-their-work-a-lie?utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Daily_093023&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_medium=email&utm_term=tny_daily_digest&bxid=62d8acc6960140516803d609&cndid=70319751&hasha=349c6abacc09730a88f6caaeae2eed71&hashb=050f79a4b8506ace65c077d4adca3a1b9dd80d69&hashc=111c4ba74b9d09f997a5922b6fb90b62e8613057488e25f04b293b87e81614c4&esrc=UP_EMAIL_POSTED&mbid=CRMNYR012019

I too thought that this was entertainment-related rather than academic research.

I'd like to know more about this groundbreaking research though:

Quote
In 2010, they and a third colleague published a paper that found that people cheated more when they wore counterfeit designer sunglasses.

Behavioral economists of the fora, if we have any, please tell us how anyone (the authors, journal editors, reviewers) thought this was a research project worth pursuing and publishing.

Secondary and tertiary social harms of allowing counterfeit goods on the marketplace?

In the past few years, luxury brands such as LVMH and Tiffany sued e-tail platforms such as eBay and Amazon for taking a hands-off approach to counterfeit goods.

In the USA, the brands lost. Courts agreed that the platforms were not responsible for doing anything more than facilitating private transactions.

In France, the platforms lost. Courts believed that the integrity of the markets meant companies were responsible for supporting one another's brand integrity. Just drawing bright lines of legal responsibility was a way of shirking one's moral and ethical responsibility. Further, there was a sense of cultural heritage in luxury brands, and to respect this heritage was a reflection of the  broader social fabric.

[dismalist]

There's also an article in the New Yorker, but I can't access it since I didn't bother to renew my subscription. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/09/they-studied-dishonesty-was-their-work-a-lie?utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Daily_093023&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_medium=email&utm_term=tny_daily_digest&bxid=62d8acc6960140516803d609&cndid=70319751&hasha=349c6abacc09730a88f6caaeae2eed71&hashb=050f79a4b8506ace65c077d4adca3a1b9dd80d69&hashc=111c4ba74b9d09f997a5922b6fb90b62e8613057488e25f04b293b87e81614c4&esrc=UP_EMAIL_POSTED&mbid=CRMNYR012019

I too thought that this was entertainment-related rather than academic research.

I'd like to know more about this groundbreaking research though:

Quote
In 2010, they and a third colleague published a paper that found that people cheated more when they wore counterfeit designer sunglasses.

Behavioral economists of the fora, if we have any, please tell us how anyone (the authors, journal editors, reviewers) thought this was a research project worth pursuing and publishing.

The article is very good, all the many questions in one place. Worth reading the whole thing.

The term "economist" is one of those things: Anybody can call him or herself economist! Wall Street, for one, loves this. The kid trying to sucker you into buying a certain stock has the job title "economist" to make the thing look marginally credible.

Gino doesn't call herself "behavioral economist". She calls herself "behavioral scientist". Her PhD background in Italy seems to be more business rather than economics, though I could be wrong, and of course parts of business are nothing more than applied economics [not the other way around]. Ariely, on the other hand, calls himself a "behavioral economist". It does have a nice ring to it, but the closest he ever got to economics was to have some colleagues down the hall at MIT. For some, that might be sufficient to understand some of the field, but I'm guessing he wasn't interested.

After reading about these cases I became very suspicious about motivation. My guess was that this stuff makes money. Ariely has founded several companies and ripped off many clients, while Gino gets speaking fees to make your eyes water. This stuff was never that believable. As far as I can tell, there's a complete lack of theory. Odd results just get pulled out of hats.

Thus, I was happy to read in the article that a real economist stated

"This is the stuff that C.E.O.s love, right?" Luigi Zingales, an economist at the University of Chicago [Booth School of Business], told me. "It's cutesy, it's not really touching their power, and pretends to do the right thing."

[Hibush]

While I'm not a behavioural economist, I am a coauthor on some BE papers. Thus I have had the opportunity to observe behavioral-economist behavior.

My team included BE faculty from two institutions and business grad students from mine. There were some arguments within our group about what could be inferred from the data, and how the data were collected that are helpful. We were pretty scrupulous, because a professor in the business dept had gotten into a lot of trouble for unscientific behavioral research. We wanted to be clean if anyone like DataColada took a look at it.

As a biologist, my basic research model applied just fine to the BE experiments. You have two potential answers (plus "something else"). The treatments should produce different outcomes depending on which answer is correct. Then you can infer that the other one is not.

Our arguments among group members were mostly about matching the treatments to the answers--specifically about how much information the subjects would have and what information they would be expected to add based on their experience. It is a difficult problem, and the discussion was fun to observe--and provoke. I'm confident that the papers we published correctly predict societal behavior, and business are making big-money decisions based on that prediction.

So with all that background, my take on the Gino story is that she got into the part of BE where they do relatively trivial experiments and make comletely unjustified generalizations to society. (e.g. I don't think any BE research with elite college students as test subjects can be applied to society at large without a huge validation.) Gino's papers in question report work that was even less sophisticated that my group's, and cheating to boot. But she  was in a mutual adoration society that normalized this stuff in the sub-sub-field.

[spork]

[. . .]

The article is very good

[. . .]

Among its merits: it reveals the quality of instruction at Harvard Law.

"Lawrence Lessig, a law professor at Harvard, told me he is certain that Gino is innocent. 'I'm convinced about her because I know her,' he said. 'That's the strongest reason why I can't believe this has happened.'"

Looks like someone needs to read up on cognitive biases.

[kaysixteen]

I wouldn't use that argument before a jury or a judge.  Ask Danny Masterson's buds.

[Wahoo Redux]

Reminds me a tiny bit of the Avital Ronell debacle.