# [LINK] Fraud Case Seen as a Red Flag for Psychology Research

An article in the [NYT](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/health/research/noted-dutch-psychologist-stapel-accused-of-research-fraud.html?_r=1&hp)'s about everyone's favourite messy science, you know the one we sometimes rely on to provide a throwaway line as we pontificate wisely about biases? ;)

> A well-known psychologist in the Netherlands whose work has been published widely in professional journals falsified data and made up entire experiments, an investigating committee has found. Experts say the case exposes deep flaws in the way science is done in a field, psychology, that has only recently earned a fragile respectability.
> 
> The psychologist, Diederik Stapel, of Tilburg University, committed academic fraud in “several dozen” published papers, many accepted in respected journals and reported in the news media, according to a report released on Monday by the three Dutch institutions where he has worked ...
> 
> _**In recent years, psychologists have reported a raft of findings on race biases, brain imaging and even extrasensory perception that have not stood up to scrutiny.**_ Outright fraud may be rare, these experts say, but they contend that Dr. Stapel took advantage of a system that allows researchers to operate in near secrecy and massage data to find what they want to find, without much fear of being challenged. ...
> 
> In a prolific career, Dr. Stapel published papers on the effect of power on hypocrisy, on racial stereotyping and on how advertisements affect how people view themselves. Many of his findings appeared in newspapers around the world, including The New York Times, which reported in December on his study about advertising and identity.
> 
> In a statement posted Monday on Tilburg University’s Web site, Dr. Stapel apologized to his colleagues. “I have failed as a scientist and researcher,” it read, in part. “I feel ashamed for it and have great regret.” ...
> 
> Dr. Stapel has published about 150 papers, many of which, like the advertising study, seem devised to make a splash in the media. The study published in Science this year claimed that white people became more likely to “stereotype and discriminate” against black people when they were in a messy environment, versus an organized one. Another study, published in 2009, claimed that people judged job applicants as more competent if they had a male voice. The investigating committee did not post a list of papers that it had found fraudulent. ...
> 
> In a survey of more than 2,000 American psychologists scheduled to be published this year, Leslie John of Harvard Business School and two colleagues found that 70 percent had acknowledged, anonymously, to cutting some corners in reporting data. About a third said they had reported an unexpected finding as predicted from the start, and about 1 percent admitted to falsifying data.
> 
> Also common is a self-serving statistical sloppiness. In an analysis published this year, Dr. Wicherts and Marjan Bakker, also at the University of Amsterdam, searched a random sample of 281 psychology papers for statistical errors. They found that about half of the papers in high-end journals contained some statistical error, and that about 15 percent of all papers had at least one error that changed a reported finding — almost always in opposition to the authors’ hypothesis.
> 
> ...
> 
> _**found that the more reluctant that scientists were to share their data, the more likely that evidence contradicted their reported findings.**_
> 
> _**...**_
> 
> _**“We know the general tendency of humans to draw the conclusions they want to draw — there’s a different threshold,”**_ said Joseph P. Simmons, a psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. “With findings we want to see, we ask, ‘Can I believe this?’ With those we don’t, we ask, ‘Must I believe this?’  
> 
> _**But reviewers working for psychology journals rarely take this into account in any rigorous way. Neither do they typically ask to see the original data.**_ While many psychologists shade and spin, Dr. Stapel went ahead and drew any conclusion he wanted.

In any case this brought to my attention by a recent blog entry on [iSteve](http://isteve.blogspot.com/2011/11/telling-people-what-they-want-to-hear.html).

> Telling people what they want to hear

Steve Sailer thinks that what gets distorted the most in such a way is a matter of supply and demand. Which is obviously good signalling for him, but is also eminently plausible. One can't help but wonder especially on the interesting connections that exist between _some_ of the "findings" of psychology of a certain period and place the obsessions and neurosis (heh) specific to that society.