Sandbox: Difference between revisions
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Deception and waste of time== | ==Deception and waste of time== | ||
To | To expand a bit on the previous post, deception in psychology is quite common. In fact, there exists an entire book devoted to the subject, ''Illusions of Reality: A History of Deception in Social Psychology'', by James H. Korn. “Stanley Milgram [famous for obedience studies] used the term t''echnical illusions'' because he thought the word ''deception'' had a negative moral bias”--italics in the original. Most people outside of the psychology realm recognize a convenient euphemism when they see one. | ||
However, the researchers who so annoyed Andrew Gelman are not psychologists but business school assistant professors, who, unfortunately like their psychologist colleagues, have to publish and seek research which can be done inexpensively. The one thing that sets this research apart is that the duped individuals were faculty members rather than that customary captive, victimized class known as convenient undergraduates. | However, the researchers who so annoyed Andrew Gelman are not psychologists but business school assistant professors, who, unfortunately like their psychologist colleagues, have to publish and seek research which can be done inexpensively. The one thing that sets this research apart is that the duped individuals were faculty members rather than that customary captive, victimized class known as convenient undergraduates. | ||
Revision as of 20:50, 28 May 2010
Deception and waste of time
To expand a bit on the previous post, deception in psychology is quite common. In fact, there exists an entire book devoted to the subject, Illusions of Reality: A History of Deception in Social Psychology, by James H. Korn. “Stanley Milgram [famous for obedience studies] used the term technical illusions because he thought the word deception had a negative moral bias”--italics in the original. Most people outside of the psychology realm recognize a convenient euphemism when they see one.
However, the researchers who so annoyed Andrew Gelman are not psychologists but business school assistant professors, who, unfortunately like their psychologist colleagues, have to publish and seek research which can be done inexpensively. The one thing that sets this research apart is that the duped individuals were faculty members rather than that customary captive, victimized class known as convenient undergraduates.
Nevertheless, Gelman’s initial reaction was to say “$63,000 worth of abusive research…or just a waste of time.” He later modified his views but perhaps he should not have. The lay public is all too familiar with the “Lies, damned lies, and statistics” apocryphally attributed to Twain and Disraeli. Almost as well known is “If you torture the data enough, it will confess to anything.” Perhaps an even more serious condemnation of the use of statistics is that many studies which utilize statistics to justify their existence are just not worth undertaking despite their titillation value and low p-values. Intercessory prayer, lucky charms and extrasensory perception come readily to mind. Unfortunately, just these kinds of investigations resonate with journalists.
Discussion
1. Consider the following University of Michigan research as an illustration of a deception study. It is entitled “Washing Away Postdecisional Dissonance.” The technical illusion in this paper had to do with preference for a product--first, music CDs (40 undergraduates) and then, jam jars (85 undergraduates)-- when in fact the real interest was in hand washing afterwards to determine its effect on regret. Why did the Wall Street Journal choose to comment on it? Estimate the cost of doing the study. If inference to a larger population is desired, what would be the relevant larger population?
2. The hand washing study begins with the statement: “Hand washing removes more than dirt--it also removes the guilt of past misdeeds, weakens the urge to engage in compensatory behavior, and attenuates the impact of disgust on moral judgment.” Based on the music CDs and the jam jars, it concludes with hand washing “can also cleanse us from traces of past decisions, reducing the need to justify them.” How would you set up a different deceptive experiment to show whether or not this is true?
3. Quite apart from dubious statistics, deception can be a dangerous endeavor as James O'Keefe might attest to. After his initial success with duping ACORN, he overreached when he tried “to tamper with Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu’s office phones” by posing as a telephone worker. More germane to this discussion, see the case of Francis Flynn. He wrote to 240 New York restaurants “claiming to have contracted food poisoning while dining at their establishments” in order to “to help collect data for a research study he had developed to determine how restaurateurs responded to complaints.” Eventually, when his deception was found out, 10 of the restaurants “filed a $100 million class-action lawsuit against Flynn and the school [Columbia University], claiming libel and emotional distress.” That was about ten years ago and in spite of this, he has now been promoted and has moved to another coast.
4. There is a spectrum: explanation, euphemism, deception, fraud. For each of the following oft-seen advertisements, justify what category is applicable.
a. “Absolutely free. Shipping and handling charges may apply.”
b. “Up to 30% off.”
c. “For your convenience, dinner that night is not included.”
d. “The illustration shown on the cereal box is enlarged to better display the contents.”
e. “Taxes and fees are extra.”
f. “Premium quality.”
g. “No entrance or sign-up fee.”
h. “Limited supply only.”
Submitted by Paul Alper