“Many written forms required by businesses and governments rely on honest reporting. Proof of honest intent is typically provided through signature at the end of, eg, tax returns or insurance policy forms. Still, people sometimes cheat to advance their financial self-interests at great costs to society. We test an easy-to-implement method to discourage dishonesty: signing at the beginning rather than at the end of a self-report, thereby reversing the order of the current practice,” the paper’s abstract read.”
Should have let the professor sign at the beginning too.
I guess reading the article a few questions pop to mind.
What was Max Bazerman’s position in 2012? Could Lisa Shu, Nina Mazar, or Dan Ariely be contacted for questioning? Was this used for a dissertation?
The Datacolada post is pretty good, it points to data reorganization and potential tampering.
​
TBH it seems easy enough to invalidate this study by doing the same exact study too. It seems there may be interest to do this very thing. If this data was falsified by doctoral candidates who were successfully able to defend this during a dissertation, would this invalidate their PhDs as well, or is the responsibility of the person guiding the research?
I don’t know if there’s enough to definitively say that the professor, whose name appears [third](https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1209746109) on the paper, is responsible for data tampering, though it makes for a catchy headline.
Though another thing that strikes me as odd is the motive… why bother to falsify this information? It’s just as valid if it didn’t matter where they signed as if it did as reported in the study.
ryle_zerg says
This is like a storyline on the show Suits
haubenmeise says
“Many written forms required by businesses and governments rely on honest reporting. Proof of honest intent is typically provided through signature at the end of, eg, tax returns or insurance policy forms. Still, people sometimes cheat to advance their financial self-interests at great costs to society. We test an easy-to-implement method to discourage dishonesty: signing at the beginning rather than at the end of a self-report, thereby reversing the order of the current practice,” the paper’s abstract read.”
Should have let the professor sign at the beginning too.
Concentrati0n says
I had a chuckle reading the title on my feed.
I guess reading the article a few questions pop to mind.
What was Max Bazerman’s position in 2012? Could Lisa Shu, Nina Mazar, or Dan Ariely be contacted for questioning? Was this used for a dissertation?
The Datacolada post is pretty good, it points to data reorganization and potential tampering.
​
TBH it seems easy enough to invalidate this study by doing the same exact study too. It seems there may be interest to do this very thing. If this data was falsified by doctoral candidates who were successfully able to defend this during a dissertation, would this invalidate their PhDs as well, or is the responsibility of the person guiding the research?
I don’t know if there’s enough to definitively say that the professor, whose name appears [third](https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1209746109) on the paper, is responsible for data tampering, though it makes for a catchy headline.
Though another thing that strikes me as odd is the motive… why bother to falsify this information? It’s just as valid if it didn’t matter where they signed as if it did as reported in the study.
buttergun says
>Veritas
-Harvard’s motto