A prominent psychology paper by Dan Ariely is accused of fraud by Simonsohn, Simmons, and Nelson.
![[138] Artificial Deadlines (Part 1): Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination](/api/image-proxy?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsubstackcdn.com%2Fimage%2Ffetch%2F%24s_!vyyr!%2Cw_1200%2Ch_675%2Cc_fill%2Cf_jpg%2Cq_auto%3Agood%2Cfl_progressive%3Asteep%2Cg_auto%2Fhttps%253A%252F%252Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%252Fpublic%252Fimages%252F3f25b70b-7d34-4ac8-a8d8-9be3f6df1b83_808x758.png)
[138] Artificial Deadlines (Part 1): Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination
A new paper in Psychological Science (.htm) reports a failure to replicate Study 2 of Ariely and Wertenbroch’s (2002) influential article entitled, “Procrastination, Deadlines, and Performance: Self-Control by Precommitment.” We analyze the data from the original paper and conclude that the data in Studies 1 and 2 were tampered with. In two posts, we present the evidence that led us to this conclusion. Today’s post focuses on the study that failed to replicate (Study 2), and our next post will b
datacolada.substack.com