The conclusion is faulty given that it was derived from faulty data. The 2002 paper had two pilot studies and 2 bigger studies. The replication of study 2 faile

The conclusion is faulty given that it was derived from faulty data. The 2002 paper had two pilot studies and 2 bigger studies. The replication of study 2 failed[1], and the original data has substantial concerning features the rest of the datacolada article lays out. This has two unfortunate implications. First, if study 2 was not necessary to support the conclusions, it seems likely it would not have been performed or included in this paper. So given it seems necessary, the conclusion is invalid. In past examples (the Reinhart-Rogoff paper comes to mind) when this happens, the authors claim it wasn't necessary and the conclusion is still valid and the professional embarrassment of a retraction is not called for. But in this case the replication failure might stand as a strike _against_ the theory. But second, this is not the first questionable data coming from Ariely's lab, and it seems unlikely this was a data entry mistake. If study 2 is not trustworthy, we should update our priors about the trustworthiness of study 1. Note it's not guaranteed to be doctored in some way, just worthy of additional scrutiny. And if that one also fails to replicate, the paper and its conclusion seems unsalvageable. Presumably his coauthor is now panicking about not keeping data from 25 years ago to exhonerate and distance himself. [1]: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09567976261460772 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09567976261460...