Prof studying honesty fabricates findings

[spork]

I don't think this guy's research has been discussed here before (Nicolas Gueguen): https://retractionwatch.com/2022/12/02/paper-about-sexual-intent-of-women-wearing-red-retracted-seven-years-after-sleuths-raised-concerns/  The Data Thugs did a pretty thorough review of his research, summarized on Nick Brown's blog (https://steamtraen.blogspot.com/2017/12/a-review-of-research-of-dr-nicolas.html) and discussed at length in the 52-page document linked there.  The pushback against this kind of effort bugs me both because this has been going on for quite a while now, flawed research (for various reasons) uncovered and held up to scrutiny, and yet researchers continue to try to get away with the most obvious fraud.  I also see researchers I respect pushing back, and I just cannot fathom it.  I think there can be a legitimate need to change the incentive structure so just getting things published is not as much of a career driver, but the researchers who apparently think they can just get away with it should also be held publicly accountable, in my opinion.  Unfortunately, there are already plenty of examples of researchers who think the gamble is worth it.  Nick Brown and James Heathers have discovered a bunch of them and brought their actions to light.

Regarding clinical trials, Elisabeth Bik has done work in that area.  I think she is mainly known for spotting image duplication in publications but has received public backlash for her science integrity efforts: https://scienceintegritydigest.com/about/

You reminded me of the Michael LaCour case from *gulp* almost ten years ago:

https://activelearningps.com/2015/06/04/american-idol/.

AFAIK, none of his collaborators/supervisors faced any consequences.

[Wahoo Redux]

So, after all this, what happens to Gino?  Predictions?

[Diogenes]

After reading all the Datacolada blogs, their outsider results are pretty darning. I expect after Harvard's internal review is complete, she gets fired. That is unless she can supply proof it was someone else in her lab- like a postdoc or grad student. The whistleblowers don't think others had access to the data, but probably only Harvard's IT could untangle that.

[Hibush]

You reminded me of the Michael LaCour case from *gulp* almost ten years ago:

https://activelearningps.com/2015/06/04/american-idol/.

AFAIK, none of his collaborators/supervisors faced any consequences.

LaCour was an excellent social engineer. He worked with advisors at two institutions (UCLA and Columbia), persuading each one that the other was providing the necessary rigor. As a charmer, he could pull that off and escape scrutiny that these advisors would normally apply. The advisors appeared to admit getting conned in this way, which may have helped them escape serious reputational consequences.

[Puget]

After reading all the Datacolada blogs, their outsider results are pretty darning. I expect after Harvard's internal review is complete, she gets fired. That is unless she can supply proof it was someone else in her lab- like a postdoc or grad student. The whistleblowers don't think others had access to the data, but probably only Harvard's IT could untangle that.

It is complete-- Datacolada didn't post until it was (they had earlier sent the report the Harvard privately that caused them to then investigate). No doubt there is a process by which she will be able to respond. Based on the retraction notices, it is clear she is all lawyered up. Still, hard to believe she will keep her job, but this is HBS we're talking about, but so I could imagine them trying to do reputation management and going along with her story that it was all just some sort of unintentional data handling mistake (which just so happened to yield the predicted results. . .).

[Wahoo Redux]

The Atlantic: The Harvard Expert on Dishonesty Who Is Accused of Lying

When behavioral-science researchers are accused of misbehavior, the allegations have a funny way of being a little on the nose. The former Harvard psychologist Marc Hauser, author of Moral Minds: The Nature of Right and Wrong, was found to have fabricated data and manipulated results. The University of Pennsylvania psychologist Lawrence Sanna, who studied judgment and decision making, resigned after facing similar allegations. Diederik Stapel, a Dutch social psychologist whose work touched on such topics as selfishness and morality, fabricated data at least 50 times, making him "perhaps the biggest con man in academic science." And last month, Francesca Gino, a Harvard Business School professor who studies dishonesty—and who wrote a book titled Rebel Talent: Why It Pays to Break the Rules at Work and in Life—was accused of falsifying data in at least four papers, three of which are on their way to being retracted. Her accusers now suggest that Gino, who has been placed on administrative leave from Harvard, may have faked data in dozens of her other published papers.

Is this some weird sublimation psychosis among scholars studying honesty, or is it just too tough to get good data on something like people's actual attitudes?

[ab_grp]

Diederik Stapel's account of what transpired in his case and what he was thinking is a little lengthy (200ish pages) but a pretty interesting read.  There's a review and summary of it here by Denny Boorsboom and Eric-Jan Wagenmakers (also psych profs): https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/derailed-the-rise-and-fall-of-diederik-stapel  You can read the whole thing here as translated by Nick Brown (note that this link will go directly to a PDF download): http://nick.brown.free.fr/stapel

[Puget]

Is this some weird sublimation psychosis among scholars studying honesty, or is it just too tough to get good data on something like people's actual attitudes?

It's hard to know-- the cheaters are hardly reliable narrators of their own motivations (Stapel's account is a good example-- very self serving). One possibility is that studying honesty and lying is a good tutorial for how to get away with lying. Another is that people are attracted to studying something they struggle with themselves. Or maybe they just like the irony of getting away with lying about research on honesty. I don't think there's any psychosis involved, but there's probably a fair degree of psychopathy.

[ab_grp]

Just wanted to pass along a few items I came across today that might be of interest:

Back to Dan Ariely, this time regarding data provenance for a different (heavily cited) dishonesty study.  Apparently the researcher he was trying to pin the data collection on has released the emails they exchanged about the situation: https://openmkt.org/blog/2023/ucla-professor-refuses-to-cover-for-dan-ariely-in-issue-of-data-provenance/

Nick Brown has also looked into a study on the relationship of wind speed and voting and has found some data errors that he does not suspect are the result of malicious doings but that do seem to serve as another cautionary tale about taking results at face value: https://steamtraen.blogspot.com/2023/07/data-errors-in-mo-et-als-2023-analysis.html#google_vignette 

[Puget]

Just wanted to pass along a few items I came across today that might be of interest:

Back to Dan Ariely, this time regarding data provenance for a different (heavily cited) dishonesty study.  Apparently the researcher he was trying to pin the data collection on has released the emails they exchanged about the situation: https://openmkt.org/blog/2023/ucla-professor-refuses-to-cover-for-dan-ariely-in-issue-of-data-provenance/

Nick Brown has also looked into a study on the relationship of wind speed and voting and has found some data errors that he does not suspect are the result of malicious doings but that do seem to serve as another cautionary tale about taking results at face value: https://steamtraen.blogspot.com/2023/07/data-errors-in-mo-et-als-2023-analysis.html#google_vignette

Thanks for posting these-- they clearly both amount to at minimum egregiously sloppy research practices, whether or not they are outright fraud.

[Sun_Worshiper]

You reminded me of the Michael LaCour case from *gulp* almost ten years ago:

https://activelearningps.com/2015/06/04/american-idol/.

AFAIK, none of his collaborators/supervisors faced any consequences.

LaCour was an excellent social engineer. He worked with advisors at two institutions (UCLA and Columbia), persuading each one that the other was providing the necessary rigor. As a charmer, he could pull that off and escape scrutiny that these advisors would normally apply. The advisors appeared to admit getting conned in this way, which may have helped them escape serious reputational consequences.

At the very least it shows serious misjudgment by these seniors.

[Puget]

Not just Gino, but also Dan Ariely. There have been questions and allegations about this for years now, but it seems the chickens are finally coming home to roost for him too.

https://www.npr.org/2023/07/27/1190568472/dan-ariely-francesca-gino-harvard-dishonesty-fabricated-data

Edited to add: Good lord, reading the statement from Hartford it is once again mind blowing not just how blatant the data fabrication was, but how BAD they were at it! Like, you can't even be bothered to fake a normal distribution and make sure the fonts are the same? And yet, they got away with it for 10+ years and made a ton of $$$ in the process.

[dismalist]

Yeah, I vaguely remember the questions asked of his purported study on signing at the top promoting honesty, but then lost track of Ariely.

Turns out that he hasn't merely cheated on a paper or two, but that he has made a whole career out of cheating. Here is a show about him by an Israeli TV station

https://twitter.com/RemyLevin/status/1686425912009510930

which I found on another board today.

Having seen the video, I now wonder not so much that Ariely is a systematic cheater but why anybody would believe him. And people have paid him big bucks for his advice. I suppose the psychological biases are to blame: People want to believe him!

[Diogenes]

Gino is suing Harvard AND the whistleblowers.

I get why someone about to be fired would sue the employer- fine go ahead. But going after the whistleblowers for engaging in the scientific process could have a severe chilling effect on future people trying to do what they are supposed to do in science- independently verify.

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

[Wahoo Redux]

Very typical of a grifter.