Evidence of Fraud in an Influential Study About Procrastination
Points and comments are a snapshot, not live.
Data for a classic procrastination study by Ariely and Wertenbroch appears to have been fabricated.
A replication of Ariely and Wertenbroch (2002) Study 2 failed, prompting a forensic analysis of the original data. The analysis found four red flags: an implausibly large effect (d = 2.5), 18 of 20 participants in the last-day deadline condition having identical scores across three tasks (twins), near-zero correlations between measures that should be strongly related (e.g., liking vs. interest, performance across tasks, time spent across tasks), and a lack of typical rounding in self-reported minutes. The authors conclude the data were severely tampered with. Ariely and Wertenbroch have requested retraction.
What commenters are saying
Commenters express strong disappointment, noting Ariely's history of controversies and that Duke still retains him. One commenter contrasts the effect size with known benchmarks (e.g., gender and height). Another argues procrastination research is unnecessary, calling it simple laziness correctable by discipline, but is rebutted by several who distinguish procrastination from laziness and note the complexity of the phenomenon.