Evidence of fraud in an influential field experiment about dishonesty
Dan Ariely's response bothers me. Here's the crucial passage:<p>> The work was conducted over ten years ago by an insurance company with whom I 
partnered on this study. The data were collected, entered, merged and anonymized by 
the company and then sent to me. This was the data file that was used for the analysis 
and then shared publicly.<p>On a plain reading, Ariely clearly states here that the data file prepared by the insurance company was the same as the one used for the analysis and shared publicly. But we already know that he modified the file:<p>- He is listed as the creator and last modifier of the published Excel file.<p>- In an email to his collaborator Nina, he admitted  that he switched the outcome labels in an attempt to make the data easier to understand. So clearly the published file was not <i>identical</i> to the one provided by the insurance company.<p>So I worry that Ariely is taking us for a ride here. He had the most incentive to get the desired results, far more than the nameless insurance company.<p>The original insurance company dataset, if it exists, is probably lying around in an email somewhere. They were, after all, able to provide the final version, which was prepared not too long after the original.