Comment on Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination

• Wildmimic@anarchist.nexus ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  The original studies authors were very selective about whp got their hands on that data, and

  About 20 years ago, on April 20, 2006, one of the authors of the forthcoming replication, Kyle Hyndman, received the original data files in an email sent from ariely@mit.edu [1]. And about 3 years ago, on August 9, 2023, […] we received an out-of-the-blue email from Hyndman in which he sent those files to us. We performed quick analyses of the data, and then had a conversation with Hyndman and his co-author, Alberto Bisin. In that conversation, they told us they were going to conduct a replication […] upon reading Footnote 14 of their paper, we also learned this: … In October 2024, at the request of the editors, we shared with Dan Ariely an analysis of the contents from the file purportedly for their Study 2 and asked for permission to include a summary of it in the paper. Dan Ariely denied our request, arguing, among other things, that the files we received may not be the actual data. He did not subsequently provide us with any additional data from the original paper. Consequently, we are unable to supplement our replication exercise with any additional analysis of the files we received in 2006 or any other data.

  Additionally, Dan Ariely (the main contributor to the studies in question) opted their website out of the Wayback Machine, and if Louis Rossman ever teached me something, it’s that people who do that very try to retcon the past.

  original