● Covered by 1 source · 1 reportMedium impact1 negative
Influential Procrastination Study Shows Evidence of Data Tampering
Key points
- Replication failed for Study 2 of a 2002 procrastination paper.
- Original data files show evidence of tampering in Study 1 and 2.
- The 2002 paper has over 2,100 citations and is widely taught.
- Dan Ariely denied permission to include data analysis in replication.
Replication Failure and Data Scrutiny
A recent paper in Psychological Science reported a failure to replicate Study 2 from Dan Ariely and Klaus Wertenbroch's 2002 article, "Procrastination, Deadlines, and Performance: Self-Control by Precommitment." The original study concluded that externally imposed deadlines led to better task performance compared to self-imposed or single deadlines.
Evidence of Data Tampering
Upon reviewing the original data files, which were received in 2006 by one of the replication authors, Kyle Hyndman, and later shared with the current authors in 2023, evidence suggests that the data in both Study 1 and Study 2 of the original paper were tampered with. This conclusion was reached after a full analysis of the data.
Author's Response and Impact
When asked by the editors of Psychological Science to include an analysis of the original data files in their replication paper, Dan Ariely denied the request, citing concerns that the files might not be the actual data and did not provide alternative data. The original 2002 paper has been highly influential, with over 2,100 citations on Google Scholar and inclusion in numerous economics and psychology courses, making the findings of data tampering significant for the fields.
✨ This summary was generated by AI from the outlets' reporting listed below. It is not independently verified and may contain errors — check the original sources. How BrevFeed works →
The daily brief
One email each morning: the day's tech stories, clustered across outlets and summarized. No account needed.
One email a day. Unsubscribe in one click, any time.
Today's brief
Spend a few minutes, get the whole day. Every topic's top stories in one hands-free rundown — listen, watch, or read the transcript.
▶ Play today's brief
New every morning, and the back catalogue is archived by date.
Primary sources
GitHub twbs/bootstrapReporting from
A new paper in Psychological Science failed to replicate Study 2 of Ariely and Wertenbroch's 2002 paper on procrastination, which found external deadlines improved performance. Further analysis of the original data files by the replication authors suggests the data in both Study 1 and Study 2 were tampered with, raising questions about the validity of a highly cited work in economics and psychology.