When skepticism goes meta:

Two years ago, the star researcher Dan Ariely, a behavioral scientist, fell into the spotlight when a trio of data sleuths exposed problems with the numbers supporting a headline-making 2012 study he helped write. The study found people were less likely to lie on a form if they signed an honesty statement at the top, as opposed to the bottom.

On the blog Data Colada, the sleuths examined one of three experiments in the paper, which claimed to use data from an insurance company. Amid the fallout from their findings, Ariely claimed that the company “collected, entered, merged, and anonymized” the data before sending it to him. That company, The Hartford, said back then that it could not locate the data.

But now they’ve located the data.

The Hartford told NPR on Friday that they found the data they contributed but discovered that after they sent it, the data was manipulated to support the findings of the study, which was retracted in 2021. The company also found differences in font between the data they sent and what shows up in the study, not to mention altogether different numbers: some inflated, some randomized.

They also say Ariely didn’t get permission to publish the data.

The experiment involving the insurance company isn’t the only one with problems. Earlier this year, Francesca Gino, a Harvard Business School professor who’s also an author on the paper, was placed on administrative leave. Later, the blog Data Colada found problems in three papers Gino helped write, which are being retracted.

Could somebody please check the “data” on gender idenniny?