Jump to content

Diederik Stapel: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Ktwelch (talk | contribs)
m grammar fix
(34 intermediate revisions by 23 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|Dutch social psychologist and research fraudster (born 1966)}}
{{BLP sources|date=June 2019}}
{{cleanup-PR|date=June 2019}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=October 2020}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=October 2020}}
'''Diederik Alexander Stapel''' (born 19 October 1966) is a Dutch former professor of [[social psychology]] at [[Tilburg University]].<ref>{{cite web |title=Diederik Stapel succeeds Theo Verhallen as Dean of the Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences |url=http://uvtapp.uvt.nl/fsw/spits.npc.shownewslettern?v_newsletter_id=9850426248424191 |publisher=[[Tilburg University]] |date=7 July 2010 |access-date=17 September 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120402101747/http://uvtapp.uvt.nl/fsw/spits.npc.shownewslettern?v_newsletter_id=9850426248424191 |archive-date=2 April 2012 |url-status=dead }}</ref> In 2011 Tilburg University suspended Stapel for [[Fabrication (science)|fabricating]] and [[Data manipulation|manipulating]] data for his research publications. This [[scientific misconduct]] took place over a number of years and affected dozens of his publications.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://universonline.nl/2012/11/28/levelt-report-fraud-detected-in-55-publications/ |title=Levelt: fraud detected in 55 publications (2013) &#124; Univers |publisher=Universonline.nl |date=2012-11-28 |access-date=2013-03-01}}</ref> {{As of|2019}}, Stapel has had 58 of these publications retracted<ref>{{cite web |title=Retraction Watch Database - Stapel |url=http://retractionwatch.com/category/diederik-stapel/ |website=Retraction Watch |publisher=Center for Scientific Integrity |access-date=2019-03-22}}</ref> and is by some regarded as "the biggest con man in academic science".<ref>{{cite web |title=The Mind of a Con Man |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/diederik-stapels-audacious-academic-fraud.html |date=2013-04-26}}</ref>
'''Diederik Alexander Stapel''' (born 19 October 1966) is a Dutch former professor of [[social psychology]] at [[Tilburg University]].<ref name="stu news appt"/> In 2011 Tilburg University suspended Stapel for [[Fabrication (science)|fabricating]] and [[Data manipulation|manipulating data]] for his research publications. This [[scientific misconduct]] took place over a number of years and affected dozens of his publications.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://universonline.nl/2012/11/28/levelt-report-fraud-detected-in-55-publications/ |title=Levelt: Fraud detected in 55 publications (2013) |work=UniversOnline.nl |date=2012-11-28 |access-date=2013-03-01}}</ref><ref>{{Citation |last=Derksen |first=Maarten |title=A Menagerie of Imposters and Truth-Tellers: Diederik Stapel and the Crisis in Psychology |date=2021 |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781529213072.003.0003 |work=The Imposter as Social Theory |pages=53–76 |publisher=Bristol University Press|doi=10.1332/policypress/9781529213072.003.0003 |isbn=9781529213072 }}</ref> By 2015, fifty-eight of Stapel's publications had been retracted.<ref name="RW 58">{{cite news |title=Diederik Stapel now has 58 retractions |url=https://retractionwatch.com/2015/12/08/diederik-stapel-now-has-58-retractions/|work=Retraction Watch |publisher=Center for Scientific Integrity |access-date=2019-03-22| date=December 8, 2015 |last= Palus |first=Shannon}}</ref> He has been described in coverage by the ''New York Times'' as "the biggest con man in academic science".<ref name="Bhattacharjee"/>


==Early life==
==Early life==
Stapel was born to Rob Stapel and Dirkje Stapel<ref name="Bhattacharjee">{{cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/diederik-stapels-audacious-academic-fraud.html|title=The Mind of a Con Man|last=Bhattacharjee |first=Yudhijith |work=The New York Times|date=26 April 2013 |access-date=15 June 2020}}</ref> on 19 October 1966 in the village of [[Oegstgeest]], near [[Leiden]].<ref>{{Cite journal|url=https://www.academia.edu/6769553|title=Changes in publication culture and the Stapel fraud case|first=Ruud|last=Abma|via=academia.edu}}</ref>
Stapel was born in the village of [[Oegstgeest]], near [[Leiden]], the youngest of four children. His father worked as a civil engineer.<ref name="Bhattacharjee">{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/diederik-stapels-audacious-academic-fraud.html|title=The Mind of a Con Man|last=Bhattacharjee |first=Yudhijith |newspaper=The New York Times|date=26 April 2013 |access-date=28 September 2023|archive-date=30 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230830170016/http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/diederik-stapels-audacious-academic-fraud.html|id=First published in the ''Sunday Magazine'' by the ''NYT''}}</ref><ref>{{Cite conference| date=2012 |conference=Second Joint Meeting of Cheiron and the European Society for the History of the Human Sciences, 18–22 July, 2012|first=Ruud |last=Abma |location =Montreal |publisher=European Society for the History of the Human Sciences |url=https://www.academia.edu/6769553 |title=Changes in publication culture and the Stapel fraud case |via=academia.edu}} [https://www.eshhs.eu/wordpress-3.3.1/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/2012_Montreal.pdf (Conference program; abstracts: p. 50)]</ref>


After completing his schooling, Stapel studied drama and [[media studies]] at [[East Stroudsburg University]] in [[Pennsylvania]] before moving back to the [[Netherlands]] for an undergraduate degree in [[psychology]].<ref name="Bhattacharjee"/> Stapel obtained an [[Master of Arts|MA]] degree in psychology and [[communication science]] from the [[University of Amsterdam]] in 1991. From the same university he obtained his [[Doctor of Philosophy|PhD]] ''[[Latin honors#Netherlands|cum laude]]'' in [[social psychology]] in 1997; his dissertation was on [[assimilation and contrast effects]].<ref name="stu news appt">{{cite news|title=Diederik Stapel succeeds Theo Verhallen as Dean of the Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences |date=8 July 2010 |access-date=5 October 2011 |work=Sociale Wetenschappen Newsletter Studenten |publisher=[[Tilburg University]] |language=en |url-status=dead |url= http://uvtapp.uvt.nl/fsw/spits.NPC.ShowArticleN?v_article_id=7425424320095932&v_newsletter_id=8823896128229022&v_language=gb |archive-date = 2 April 2012 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120402101814/http://uvtapp.uvt.nl/fsw/spits.NPC.ShowArticleN?v_article_id=7425424320095932&v_newsletter_id=8823896128229022&v_language=gb |postscript= –}} via [https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/about/schools/socialsciences Tilburg University School of Social and Behavioral Sciences] {{In language|en}}</ref> Before embarking on his doctoral research, in 1991–1992, Stapel returned to the US for study, undertaking a program on behavioral decision making at the University of Chicago's Graduate School of Business.<ref>{{multiref|1={{cite journal |last1=Stapel |first1=Diederik A. |last2=Spears |first2=Russell |title=Guilty by Disassociation (And Innocent by Association): The Impact of Relevant and Irrelevant Analogies on Political Judgments |journal=Political Behavior |date=1996 |volume=18 |issue=3 |pages=289–309 |doi=10.1007/BF01498603 |jstor=586619 |s2cid=144307786 |quote-page=289 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/586619 |issn=0190-9320 |quote=The study reported in this article was performed when Diederik A. Stapel was at the Center for Decision Research, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago.}}|2={{cite web |title=Curriculum Vitae (English version) |url=http://www.stapel.socialpsychology.nl/cv.html |website=Diederik Stapel Website |date=September 2006}}}}</ref>
In high school, he met his would-be wife Marcelle, whom he later married in 1997. After completing his schooling, Stapel, for a while, studied acting at [[East Stroudsburg University]] in [[Pennsylvania]] before moving back to the [[Netherlands]] for an undergraduate degree in [[Psychology]].<ref name="Bhattacharjee"/>

He married in 1997; Stapel and his wife had first met in high school.


==Career==
==Career==
After gaining his doctorate, Stapel continued at UvA as a fellow of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences ({{abbr|KNAW|Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen|KNAW}}) for three years.{{Sfn|''Flawed Science''|2012|p=39}}
Stapel obtained an [[Master of Arts|M.A.]] in [[psychology]] and [[Communication studies|communications]] in 1991 and a [[PhD]] cum laude in [[social psychology]] in 1997, all from the [[University of Amsterdam]].<ref name="cv_TU_for_students">{{cite news|title=Diederik Stapel succeeds Theo Verhallen as Dean of the Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences |url=http://uvtapp.uvt.nl/fsw/spits.NPC.ShowArticleN?v_article_id=7425424320095932&v_newsletter_id=8823896128229022&v_language=gb |date=8 July 2010 |access-date=5 October 2011 |publisher=[[Tilburg University]] |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120402101814/http://uvtapp.uvt.nl/fsw/spits.NPC.ShowArticleN?v_article_id=7425424320095932&v_newsletter_id=8823896128229022&v_language=gb|archive-date = 2 April 2012}}</ref> He became a professor at the [[University of Groningen]] in 2000<ref name="cv_TU_for_students"/> and moved to [[Tilburg University]] in 2006, where he founded TiBER, the Tilburg Institute for Behavioral Economics Research.<ref name="cv_TU_for_students"/> In September 2010, Stapel became dean of the social and behavioral sciences faculty.<ref name="cv_TU_for_students"/>
Stapel became a professor at the [[University of Groningen]] in 2000<ref name="stu news appt"/> and moved to [[Tilburg University]] in 2006, where he cofounded TiBER, the Tilburg Institute for Behavioral Economics Research.<ref name="stu news appt"/> In September 2010, Stapel became dean of the social and behavioral sciences faculty.<ref name="stu news appt"/>


Stapel received the Career Trajectory Award from the [[Society of Experimental Social Psychology]] in 2009, which has since been retracted.<ref>{{cite web |title=Career Trajectory Award Recipients|url=http://www.sesp.org/trajectory.htm |access-date=1 November 2011 |publisher=[[Society of Experimental Social Psychology]]}}</ref> He returned his PhD title to the University of Amsterdam in November 2011, noting that his "behavior of the past years are inconsistent with the duties associated with the doctorate".<ref>{{cite web|author=Redactie |url=http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2686/Binnenland/article/detail/3026242/2011/11/10/Stapel-doet-vrijwillig-afstand-van-doctorstitel.dhtml |title=Stapel doet vrijwillig afstand van doctorstitel – Binnenland – VK |work=De Volkskrant |access-date=2011-11-17}}</ref>
Stapel received the Career Trajectory Award from the [[Society of Experimental Social Psychology]] in 2009, which has since been retracted.<ref>{{cite web |title=Career Trajectory Award Recipients|url=http://www.sesp.org/trajectory.htm |access-date=1 November 2011 |publisher=[[Society of Experimental Social Psychology]]}}</ref> He voluntarily surrendered his PhD title to the University of Amsterdam in November 2011, noting that his "behavior of the past years are inconsistent with the duties associated with the doctorate". This action was taken into account in the decision of Dutch prosecutors to not pursue criminal actions.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2686/Binnenland/article/detail/3026242/2011/11/10/Stapel-doet-vrijwillig-afstand-van-doctorstitel.dhtml |title=Stapel doet vrijwillig afstand van doctorstitel – Binnenland – VK |work=de Volkskrant |access-date=2011-11-17}}</ref>

In October 2014, Dutch media reporter, Eli MacColl, stated that Stapel had returned to work, teaching social philosophy at the Fontys Academy for Creative Industries in Tilburg.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://nos.nl/artikel/705115-diederik-stapel-doceert-bij-fontys.html|title=Diederik Stapel doceert bij Fontys|date=1 October 2014|work=[[Nederlandse Omroep Stichting]]|language=Dutch|access-date=2 October 2014}}</ref>


== Scientific misconduct ==
== Scientific misconduct ==
=== Investigations ===
In September 2011, Tilburg University suspended Stapel due to his fabrication of data used in research publications. The university announced an investigation of his work.<ref>{{cite press release |title=Prof. Diederik Stapel suspended |url=http://uvtapp.uvt.nl/fsw/spits.npc.ShowPressReleaseCM?v_id=4082238588785510 |publisher=[[Tilburg University]] |date=7 September 2011 |access-date=17 September 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120402101739/http://uvtapp.uvt.nl/fsw/spits.npc.ShowPressReleaseCM?v_id=4082238588785510 |archive-date=2 April 2012 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Enserink |first=Martin |title=Dutch university sacks social psychologist over faked data |magazine=[[Science (magazine)|Science]] |url=http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/09/dutch-university-sacks-social.html |date=7 September 2011 |access-date=17 September 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110930010614/http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/09/dutch-university-sacks-social.html|archive-date=30 September 2011 }}</ref>
In September 2011, Tilburg University suspended Stapel due to his fabrication of data used in research publications. The university announced an investigation of his work.<ref>{{cite press release |title=Prof. Diederik Stapel suspended |url=http://uvtapp.uvt.nl/fsw/spits.npc.ShowPressReleaseCM?v_id=4082238588785510 |publisher=[[Tilburg University]] |date=7 September 2011 |access-date=17 September 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120402101739/http://uvtapp.uvt.nl/fsw/spits.npc.ShowPressReleaseCM?v_id=4082238588785510 |archive-date=2 April 2012 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Enserink |first=Martin |title=Dutch university sacks social psychologist over faked data |magazine=[[Science (magazine)|Science]] |url=http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/09/dutch-university-sacks-social.html |date=7 September 2011 |access-date=17 September 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110930010614/http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/09/dutch-university-sacks-social.html|archive-date=30 September 2011 }}</ref>


On 31 October 2011, a committee entrusted with investigating "the extent and nature of the breach of scientific integrity committed by Mr D.A. Stapel", formed by the Rector Magnificus of Tilburg University and chaired by [[Willem Levelt|Willem ("Pim") Levelt]], published an interim report regarding Stapel's activities at the three Dutch universities where he had worked.{{Sfn|Interim Levelt Report|2011}}
===Levelt committee===
On 31 October 2011, a committee entrusted with investigating "the extent and nature of the breach of scientific integrity committed by Mr D.A. Stapel", formed by the Rector Magnificus of Tilburg University and chaired by [[Willem Levelt|Willem ("Pim") Levelt]], published an interim report regarding Stapel's activities at the three Dutch universities where he had worked.<ref name="levelt1">{{cite web |agency=Levelt Committee |title=Interim Report Regarding the Breach of Scientific Integrity by Prof. D. A. Stapel |date=31 October 2011 |publisher=Tilburg University |access-date=17 January 2012 |url=https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/upload/547aa461-6cd1-48cd-801b-61c434a73f79_interim-report.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160627142859/https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/upload/547aa461-6cd1-48cd-801b-61c434a73f79_interim-report.pdf |archive-date=27 June 2016 |url-status=dead }}</ref> The interim report pointed to three unidentified young researchers as the [[whistleblowers]] for the case, and implies that these whistleblowers spent months making observations of Stapel and his work before they concluded that something actually was wrong.


Stapel provided the investigating committees with a list of his publications that contained fictitious data, acknowledging that it may not be complete.{{Sfn|Interim Levelt Report|2011}}
The report also cites two professors who claim they had previously seen examples of Stapel's data that were "too good to be true."<ref name="levelt1" /> The report concluded that Stapel made up data for at least 30&nbsp;publications.<ref name="levelt1"/>


An extensive report analyzes all 130{{nbsp}}of Stapel's articles and twenty-four book chapters.<ref name="dutchnews.nl">{{cite web |url=http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2012/03/first_committee_findings_damn.php |title=First committee findings damn fraudulent Tilburg professor |publisher= Dutchnews.nl |date=27 March 2012}}</ref> A website was set up on 27 March 2012 to publish interim findings.<ref name="dutchnews.nl"/><ref>{{cite web |title=Commissie Levelt |url=https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/nl/over/gedrag-integriteit/commissie-levelt |website=Tilburg University |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230924103318/https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/nl/over/gedrag-integriteit/commissie-levelt |archive-date=24 September 2023 |language=nl}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.commissielevelt.nl/ |title=Investigations website – Home |website=Stapel Investigation: Joint Tilburg – Groningen – Amsterdam investigation of the publications by Mr. Stapel |archive-date=31 July 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120731213214/https://www.commissielevelt.nl/}}</ref> According to the first findings, out of an initial batch of twenty Stapel publications studied by the Levelt committee, twelve journal articles were fabricated and three contributions to books were also fraudulent.<ref name="dutchnews.nl"/><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.nu.nl/wetenschap/2774144/diederik-stapel-heeft-nooit-excuses-aangeboden.html |title=Diederik Stapel heeft nooit excuses aangeboden |language=nl |work=NU.nl |date=28 March 2012}}</ref> The Dutch newspaper ''[[de Volkskrant]]'' reported that the final report was due on 28 November 2012, and that a book by Stapel was to be released around the same time.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2672/Wetenschap-Gezondheid/article/detail/3354980/2012/11/28/Hoe-heeft-Stapel-de-wetenschappelijke-wereld-voor-de-gek-kunnen-houden.dhtml|title=Hoe heeft Stapel de wetenschappelijke wereld voor de gek kunnen houden?|date=28 November 2012|work=[[de Volkskrant]]|language=nl|access-date=28 November 2012}}</ref>
His general method towards the end of his career was to develop a complete experiment at the level of theory, hypotheses, methods, stimuli, questionnaires, and even participants' rewards&nbsp;– and then pretend that he would run the experiments at schools to which only he had access. Instead of doing so, he would make up the data and send these to colleagues for further analysis. The report also stated that earlier in his career, going back at least to 2004, he appears to have manipulated data rather than faked them.<ref>Levelt, Oct. 2011, p.&nbsp;9</ref>


"We have some 30{{nbsp}}papers in peer-reviewed journals where we are actually sure that they are fake, and there are more to come," Pim Levelt, chair of the committee investigating Stapel's work said in a media statement.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Gonzalez |first1=Robbie |title=Psychologist admits to faking dozens of scientific studies |url=https://gizmodo.com/psychologist-admits-to-faking-dozens-of-scientific-stud-5855733 |work=Gizmodo |date=2 November 2011 |language=en}}</ref>
In all cases he acted alone and the report did not find any indication that [[Collaborative editing|coauthors]], PhD students, or others were aware even in instances where suspicion may have been reasonable.<ref>Levelt, Oct. 2011, p. 6.</ref> On pages six to seven, the interim report names 19&nbsp;theses prepared with data delivered by Stapel. Of those, seven have been cleared. There are various degrees of suspicion about the remaining 12. The report advised that the degrees of the students involved should not be retracted.<ref name="levelt1"/>


===Suspicions raised===
It became widely known that Stapel treated his graduate students unfairly, with most of them graduating without ever actually completing an experiment.
The Levelt joint committees' reports acknowledged three unnamed young Tilburg University researchers as the [[whistleblowers]] for the case. The whistleblowers had become suspicious when one noticed anomalous data they had received from Stapel. Subsequent discussion with Stapel did not allay their concerns. During a research meeting where Stapel presented data for a new study, the data fitted the hypothesis so perfectly that someone joked "It is as if he made up these data himself."<ref name=":0" /> The three spent several months conducting their own enquiries using data files Stapel had supplied. They found an entire row of scores appearing identically in two studies, which strongly suggested of fraud. Once they felt they had sufficient evidence, they approached the head of the Department of Social Psychology, Marcel Zeelenberg. The students' evidence was convincing enough that Zeelenburg brought it directly to the {{lang|la|[[Rector (academia)#Netherlands|rector magnificus]]}}, Philip Eijlander. Official investigations were set in motion within days by Tilburg University, which were soon joined by the UvA and the University of Groningen.<ref name="Bhattacharjee"/>{{Sfn|''Flawed Science''|2012|pp=7–8}} Stapel claimed that the data was collected by his contacts in schools. When the rector asked Stapel for those contacts, Stapel said the schools did not actually exist. This was the [[smoking gun]].<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last1=Stroebe |first1=Wolfgang |last2=Postmes |first2=Tom |last3=Spears |first3=Russell |date=November 2012 |title=Scientific Misconduct and the Myth of Self-Correction in Science |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1745691612460687 |journal=Perspectives on Psychological Science |language=en |volume=7 |issue=6 |pages=670–688 |doi=10.1177/1745691612460687 |pmid=26168129 |issn=1745-6916}}</ref>
Stapel controlled the data in his lab, and when students asked to see the raw data, they were often given excuses.<ref>{{cite news|date=1 November 2011|title= Diederik Stapel: The Lying Dutchman |work=The Washington Post (Post Opinions) |access-date=17 January 2012 |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/achenblog/post/diederik-stapel-the-lying-dutchman/2011/11/01/gIQA86XOdM_blog.html }}</ref>


The Levelt report also noted two professors who claim they had previously seen examples of Stapel's data that were "too good to be true."{{Sfn|Interim Levelt Report|2011}}
According to the report, there were occasions when Stapel's data were given to an assistant to be entered into a computer. This assistant would then return the data file to Stapel. The researcher analyzing the data would then receive the file directly from Stapel. Stapel would apparently tell this researcher to "Be aware that you have gold in your hands."<ref name="levelt1"/> The report also suggests that Stapel elected to present a list of publications that contained fictitious data.<ref name="levelt1"/>


===Methods===
The interim report stated that it was not possible to determine whether Stapel fabricated or manipulated data for his 1997 [[dissertation]] at the University of Amsterdam, because the data had been destroyed. The university announced that it would investigate whether it would be possible to retract Stapel's PhD because of exceptionally unworthy scientific behavior.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.uva.nl/actueel/nieuws/nieuws.cfm/8BF58B4E-702F-4206-993E1F3423C0EB66 |title=Commissie onderzoekt Amsterdamse werk Stapel – Nieuws en Agenda – Universiteit van Amsterdam |language=nl |publisher=Uva.nl |date=23 September 2011 |access-date=2011-11-17 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111127160850/http://www.uva.nl/actueel/nieuws/nieuws.cfm/8BF58B4E-702F-4206-993E1F3423C0EB66|archive-date=27 November 2011 }}</ref><ref>Levelt, Oct 2011, p. 20</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.uva.nl/actueel/nieuws/nieuws.cfm/97DC3500-9DF4-447A-AE5827BA7E77F4E2 |title=UvA onderzoekt mogelijkheid intrekken doctorsgraad Stapel – Nieuws en Agenda – Universiteit van Amsterdam |language=nl |publisher=Uva.nl |date=31 October 2011 |access-date=2011-11-17 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111104040329/http://www.uva.nl/actueel/nieuws/nieuws.cfm/97DC3500-9DF4-447A-AE5827BA7E77F4E2|archive-date=4 November 2011 }}</ref>
Stapel controlled the data in his lab: when students asked to see the raw data, they were often given excuses.<ref>{{cite news|date=1 November 2011|title= Diederik Stapel: The Lying Dutchman |newspaper=The Washington Post |id=(''Post'' Opinions) |access-date=17 January 2012 |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/achenblog/post/diederik-stapel-the-lying-dutchman/2011/11/01/gIQA86XOdM_blog.html }}</ref> There were occasions when Stapel's data were given to an assistant to be entered into a computer. This assistant would then return the data file to Stapel. The researcher analyzing the data would then receive the file directly from Stapel.{{Sfn|Interim Levelt Report|2011}}


Curiosity regarding datasets was discouraged by Stapel and, at times, persistent or perceptive questioning would be met with apparent hostility. In one case the Levelt committee reports, a PhD student who was querying unusual data was told by Stapel: "If you want to be taken on here you will have to demonstrate that you can get something finished, so just write up the results." Several PhD students told the investigation that they had been pressured into silence by Stapel's untoward use of his power over them.{{Sfn|''Flawed Science''|2012|p=44}}
The interim report stated that Stapel had caused severe damage to young people at the beginning of their careers, as well as to the general confidence in science, in particular social psychology.<ref name="levelt1"/> The University of Tilburg announced that it would pursue criminal prosecution of Stapel.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Callaway, Ewen |title=Report finds massive fraud at Dutch universities |doi=10.1038/479015a |journal=Nature |date= 8 December 2011|volume=479 |issue=7371 |pages=15 |pmid=22051650|bibcode=2011Natur.479...15C |doi-access=free }}</ref>


As his process for fraudulent research developed, by his Tilburg years his general method was to formulate in full all the elements of a proposed study{{nbsp}}– an experiment, with its theoretical grounding, the hypotheses, methods, stimuli, questionnaires, and even participants' rewards{{nbsp}}– and then create the fictitious data which he would then provide to colleagues and students for further analysis. He would pretend to run the experiments with the help of unnamed research assistants. Instead of doing so, he would make up the data. A plausible explanation would be offered for excluding others from data collection. For example, several experiments were to be run in schools; Stapel made it known that he had access to these by special arrangements which would be endangered by involving other researchers. The purported schools preferred to deal with Stapel alone, whom they knew and trusted and would be bothered by having additional, unknown researchers involved.{{Sfn|''Flawed Science''|2012|p=43}} Earlier in his career, going back at least to 2004, rather than faking data, the investigations found he appears to have manipulated data —for example, by simply altering numerals in the recorded outcome measures, so that the calculated means of scores for the contrasted experimental conditions would appear to differ, in support of his tested hypothesis.{{Sfn|Interim Levelt Report|2011|p=9}}
An extensive report investigates all of Stapel's 130&nbsp;articles and 24&nbsp;book chapters.<ref name="dutchnews.nl">{{cite web |url=http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2012/03/first_committee_findings_damn.php |title=First committee findings damn fraudulent Tilburg professor |publisher= Dutchnews.nl |date=27 March 2012}}</ref> A website was set up on 27 March 2012 to publish intermediate findings.<ref name="dutchnews.nl"/><ref>[https://www.commissielevelt.nl/ "Stapel Investigation website"], Joint Tilburg/ Groningen/ Amsterdam investigation of the publications by Mr. Stapel</ref> According to the first findings, on the first batch of 20 publications by Stapel, studied by the Levelt committee, 12 were falsified and three contributions to books were also fraudulent.<ref name="dutchnews.nl"/><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nu.nl/wetenschap/2774144/diederik-stapel-heeft-nooit-excuses-aangeboden.html |title=Diederik Stapel heeft nooit excuses aangeboden |language=Dutch |publisher= nu.nl |date=28 March 2012}}</ref> ''[[de Volkskrant]]'' reported that the final report was due on 28 November 2012, and that a book by Stapel was to be released around the same time.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2672/Wetenschap-Gezondheid/article/detail/3354980/2012/11/28/Hoe-heeft-Stapel-de-wetenschappelijke-wereld-voor-de-gek-kunnen-houden.dhtml|title=Hoe heeft Stapel de wetenschappelijke wereld voor de gek kunnen houden?|date=28 November 2012|work=[[de Volkskrant]]|language=Dutch|access-date=28 November 2012}}</ref>


Stapel's supply of pre-collected data to his graduate students was noted as being atypical for masters students and PhD candidates, but was presented by Stapel as an advantage to them, which they did perceive as helpful and even a luxury.{{sfn|''Flawed Science'' |2012|p=41}} This process, even apart from the fraudulent data, was inappropriate, with most of the students graduating without ever actually completing an experiment.{{Sfn|Interim Levelt Report|2011}}
"We have some 30&nbsp;papers in peer-reviewed journals where we are actually sure that they are fake, and there are more to come," Pim Levelt, chair of the committee investigating Stapel's work stated.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://io9.gizmodo.com/psychologist-admits-to-faking-dozens-of-scientific-stud-5855733|title=Psychologist admits to faking dozens of scientific studies|website=io9}}</ref>{{full short|date=June 2019}}


Stapel's scientific misconduct went undetected for at least fifteen years. The Levelt report concludes that his academic reputation was, in part, the reason his illicit activities were able to continue for such a length of time. At Tilburg he was considered a leading researcher with a high profile both in academic psychology and in the popular media in the Netherlands. His colleagues and students generally viewed him positively. The report says he had a reputation as being "charismatic, friendly and incredibly talented".{{sfn|''Flawed Science'' |2012}} Many students became his personal friends.<ref name="Bhattacharjee"/>
===Coping with chaos===
A month after Tilburg University announced that it had found evidence of fraud in Stapel's work, the journal ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'' posted a retraction notice on Stapel's co-authored paper entitled ''Coping with chaos: How disordered contexts promote stereotyping and discrimination''.<ref name="retractionwatch">{{cite web |last=Marcus|first= A. |title= ''Science'' drops other shoe in Stapel case, retracts recent paper on chaos |publisher=Retraction Watch |date=1 December 2011|access-date=17 January 2012| url=http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/science-drops-other-shoe-in-stapel-case-retracts-recent-paper-on-chaos/}}</ref> The report from ''Science'' says:


=== Findings ===
{{quote|Our Report "Coping with chaos: How disordered contexts promote stereotyping and discrimination" reported the effects of the physical environment on human stereotyping and discriminatory behavior. On 31 October 2011, the University of Tilburg held a press conference to announce findings of their investigation into possible data fraud on the part of author Stapel. These findings of the university's interim report included fabrication of data in this Science paper. Therefore, we are retracting the paper, with apologies from author Stapel. Coauthor Lindenberg was in no way involved in the generation of the data, and agrees to the retraction of the paper.<ref name="retractionwatch"/>}}
On 28 November 2012, the final joint report, from the three investigating committees, was published.{{Sfn|''Flawed Science'' |2012}}


The interim report concluded that Stapel falsified or fabricated data for at least 30{{nbsp}}publications.{{Sfn|Interim Levelt Report|2011}} When the final report was released, that number had risen to fifty-five. They were unable to determine whether Stapel fabricated or manipulated data for his 1997 [[dissertation]] at the University of Amsterdam (UvA), because the data had been destroyed, in common with data for much of Stapel's earlier work. The university announced that it would investigate whether it would be possible to retract Stapel's PhD because of exceptionally unworthy scientific behavior.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.uva.nl/actueel/nieuws/nieuws.cfm/8BF58B4E-702F-4206-993E1F3423C0EB66 |title=Commissie onderzoekt Amsterdamse werk Stapel |work=Nieuws en Agenda |publisher=Universiteit van Amsterdam |language=nl |date=23 September 2011 |access-date=2011-11-17 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111127160850/http://www.uva.nl/actueel/nieuws/nieuws.cfm/8BF58B4E-702F-4206-993E1F3423C0EB66|archive-date=27 November 2011 }}</ref>{{Sfn|Interim Levelt Report|2011|p=20}}<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.uva.nl/actueel/nieuws/nieuws.cfm/97DC3500-9DF4-447A-AE5827BA7E77F4E2 |title=UvA onderzoekt mogelijkheid intrekken doctorsgraad Stapel |work=Nieuws en Agenda |publisher=Universiteit van Amsterdam |language=nl |date=31 October 2011 |access-date=2011-11-17 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111104040329/http://www.uva.nl/actueel/nieuws/nieuws.cfm/97DC3500-9DF4-447A-AE5827BA7E77F4E2|archive-date=4 November 2011 }}</ref>
In December 2011, Stapel retracted this paper, the first to be retracted. The journal expressed initial concern regarding the paper's validity on 1 November.<ref name="NatureBlog">{{cite web|last=Callaway |first=E. |title=Dutch psychology fraudster issues first retraction. |work=Nature (Nature News Blog) |date=1 December 2011|access-date=17 January 2012|url=http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/12/stapel.html}}</ref> In a response to the retraction, coauthor of the ''Chaos'' paper Siegwart Lindenberg told the journal in an email, "Stapel's doing had caught me as much by surprise as it did anybody else. I never had any suspicion. He was a very trusted man, dean of the faculty, brilliant, successful, no indications for me to be distrustful. In this, I was not the only one. I also had no trouble with the results of the experiments."<ref name="NatureBlog"/>


The interim report stated that Stapel had caused severe damage to young people at the beginning of their careers, as well as to the general confidence in science, in particular social psychology.{{Sfn|Interim Levelt Report|2011}} The University of Tilburg announced that it would pursue criminal prosecution of Stapel.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Callaway |first=Ewen |title=Report finds massive fraud at Dutch universities |doi=10.1038/479015a |journal=Nature |date= 8 December 2011|volume=479 |issue=7371 |pages=15 |pmid=22051650|bibcode=2011Natur.479...15C |doi-access=free }}</ref>
===Selfishness in carnivores===
The research result, obtained by Stapel and co-workers [[Roos Vonk]] and Marcel Zeelenberg, that [[carnivore]]s are more selfish than [[vegetarianism|vegetarians]], which was widely publicized in Dutch media,<ref>{{cite news |title=Meat eaters are selfish and less social |url=http://www.dutchdailynews.com/meat-eaters-selfish-less-social/ |date=30 August 2011 |access-date=17 September 2011 |publisher=DutchDailyNews.com}}</ref> was suspected and later turned out to be based on falsified data.<ref>{{cite news |title=Meat eaters absolved, professor in the dock |url=http://www.dutchnews.nl/features/2011/09/meat_eaters_absolved_professor.php |date=8 September 2011 |access-date=17 September 2011 |publisher=DutchNews.nl}}</ref> The research result had not yet been published in a scientific journal; only a press bulletin was released.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.vn.nl/Archief/Wetenschap/Artikel-Wetenschapmilieu/Onder-psychologen.htm |archive-url=https://archive.is/20130222165141/http://www.vn.nl/Archief/Wetenschap/Artikel-Wetenschapmilieu/Onder-psychologen.htm |url-status=dead |archive-date=22 February 2013 |title=Onder psychologen |last=Vanheste |first=Thomas |date=13 September 2011 |publisher=Vrij Nederland |language=Dutch |access-date=31 October 2011 }}</ref>


Despite being critical of an overarching shortfall in collective academic responsibility, the investigating committees emphasized that Stapel acted alone in all cases of known misconduct. The report found no indication that any [[Collaborative editing|coauthors]], PhD students, or others were aware of the fraudulent conduct. The reports did suggest that the data were in some instances so unusual that suspicion may have been reasonable.{{Sfn|Interim Levelt Report|2011|p=6}} The interim report names 19{{nbsp}}theses prepared with data delivered by Stapel. Of those, seven have been cleared. There are various degrees of suspicion about the remaining twelve. The report advised that the degrees of the students involved should not be retracted.{{Sfn|Interim Levelt Report|2011|pp=6–7}}
===Reaction by Stapel===
Responding to the interim report, Stapel stated:
{{quote|I failed as a scientist. I adapted research data and fabricated research. Not once, but several times, not for a short period, but over a longer period of time. I realize that I shocked and angered my colleagues, because of my behavior. I put my field, social psychology in a bad light. I am ashamed of it and I deeply regret it&nbsp;... I think it is important to emphasize that I never informed my colleagues of my inappropriate behavior. I offer my colleagues, my PhD students, and the complete academic community my sincere apologies. I am aware of the suffering and sorrow that I caused to them&nbsp;... I did not withstand the pressure to score, to publish, the pressure to get better in time. I wanted too much, too fast. In a system where there are few checks and balances, where people work alone, I took the wrong turn. I want to emphasize that the mistakes that I made were not born out of selfish ends.<ref>[http://bd.nl/nieuws/tilburg-stad/stapel-betuigt-openlijk-diepe-spijt-1.121338 "Stapel betuigt openlijk 'diepe spijt'"]. Brabants Dagblad. 31 October 2011.</ref>}}


===Prosecution settlement===
In his memoirs published in November 2012, Stapel admits his fraud, but protests against the accusation in the interim report that he was a cunning, manipulative fraud with a plan.
In June 2013 Stapel agreed, in a settlement with the prosecutor, to perform 120 hours of [[community service]] and to lose the right to some benefits associated with his former job equivalent to a year and a half's worth of salary. In this way, he avoided further criminal prosecution.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2013/06/28/diederik-stapel-treft-schikking-met-justitie-om-vervolging-te-voorkomen/ |title=Diederik Stapel treft schikking met justitie om vervolging te voorkomen |author=Frank Huiskamp |work=NRC Handelsblad |date=28 June 2013 |access-date=13 July 2013|language=nl}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Bhattacharjee |first=Yudhijith |url=http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/06/stapel-gets-community-service-fo.html |title=Stapel Gets Community Service for Fabricating Studies |work= Science Insider |date=28 June 2013 |access-date=13 July 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130706063903/http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/06/stapel-gets-community-service-fo.html|archive-date=6 July 2013 }}</ref>


===Reaction in academia===
==Reaction==
===Stapel response===
On 28 November 2012, the joint final report, from the three investigating committees, was published.<ref name=final>{{cite web|url=http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/nl/nieuws-en-agenda/finalreportLevelt.pdf |title=Flawed science: The fraudulent research practices of social psychologist Diederik Stapel |author1=Levelt Committee |author2=Noort Committee |author3=Drenth Committee |date=28 November 2012 |access-date=14 February 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130112204021/http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/nl/nieuws-en-agenda/finalreportLevelt.pdf|archive-date=12 January 2013 }}</ref>
Responding to the interim report, Stapel stated:<ref name="Oct statement">{{cite news|url=http://bd.nl/nieuws/tilburg-stad/stapel-betuigt-openlijk-diepe-spijt-1.121338 |title=Stapel betuigt openlijk 'diepe spijt' |newspaper=[[Brabants Dagblad]] |date=31 October 2011 |archive-date=29 May 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120529001933/http://bd.nl/nieuws/tilburg-stad/stapel-betuigt-openlijk-diepe-spijt-1.121338}}</ref>{{efn|name="ds statement"}}
{{quote|I have failed as a scientist, as a researcher. I have manipulated research data and faked studies. Not once, but several times, not for a short period, but over a longer period of time. I realize that by this behavior I have left my immediate colleagues bewildered and angry and have put my field of study, social psychology, in a bad light. I'm ashamed of that and I deeply regret it.&nbsp;... it is important to emphasize that I never informed my colleagues of my inappropriate behavior. I offer my colleagues, my PhD students, and the complete academic community my sincere apologies. I am aware of the suffering and sorrow that I caused to them&nbsp;... }}


In his memoirs published in November 2012, Stapel admits his fraud, but protests against the accusation in the interim report that he was a cunning, manipulative fraud with a plan.
It has been suggested that Stapel was able to continue his fraud for so long because of his status. At Tilburg he was "considered a star"{{uncited quote|date=June 2019}} and was seen by his colleagues and students as charismatic, friendly and incredibly talented.<ref name="final" /> Many students became his personal friends. But the final Levelt report raises more controversial questions about the ways in which Stapel went unchallenged for so long. The report concludes that there was "a more general failure of scientific criticism in the peer community and a research culture that was excessively oriented to uncritical confirmation of one's own ideas and to finding appealing but theoretically superficial ad hoc results". It goes on to suggest that "not infrequently reviews [of social psychology journal articles] were strongly in favour of telling an interesting, elegant, concise and compelling story, possibly at the expense of the necessary scientific diligence."<ref name=jarrett>Jarrett, C., "Stapel – final report", in ''The Psychologist'' (News), Vol 26, Part 2 (February 2013), p. 88</ref>


===In academia===
This aspect of the report has been criticised by the Social Psychology Section of the [[British Psychological Society]]. In a letter to the ''[[Times Higher Education Supplement]]'', on behalf of the Section, Stephen Gibson at [[York St John University]], points out ".. there are no grounds for concluding either that research fraud is any more common in social psychology than other disciplines or that its editorial processes are particularly poor at detecting it,"{{uncited quote|date=June 2019}} adding that: "Our sub-discipline does not deserve the harm to its reputation that may be provoked by the careless implication of ''unique'' deficiencies."{{uncited quote|date=June 2019}} The Levelt report has also been criticised by the [[European Association of Social Psychology]] in an open letter to its members.{{citation needed|date=October 2019}}
In a review for the [[Association for Psychological Science]]'s ''Observer'', Stapel's {{lang|nl|Ontsporing}} ('Derailment'), a book-length memoir, is described by Dutch psychologists [[Denny Borsboom]] and [[Eric-Jan Wagenmakers]] as "revealing". In the work, Stapel recounts that his transgressions began when he was sitting alone in his office and changed "an unexpected 2 into a 4". The reviewers suggest the memoir may provide insights into systemic failures within research science, saying that in his account of the affair, "Stapel appears to underscore the conclusions from the Levelt committee" in this regard. On their reading, there are also the personal frailties that contributed to the fraud on show: They call it a "... a captivating book, even as it is transparently self-serving. On a personal level, it is an emotional account of a fraudster's insecurities, fears, and self-hatred."<ref>{{cite magazine |first1=Denny |last1=Borsboom |first2=Eric-Jan |last2= Wagenmakers |date=January 2013 | title=[Book Review] ''Derailed'': The Rise and Fall of Diederik Stapel |url=https://www.ejwagenmakers.com/2013/BorsboomWagenmakers2013.pdf |pages=31, 33 |magazine=Observer |publisher= Association for Psychological Science |volume=26 |issue=1}}</ref> The reviewers describe the final chapter of the book as "unexpectedly beautiful" but consider that many of its lines are "copied" from the works of writers [[Raymond Carver]] and [[James Joyce]], without due acknowledgement.<ref name=jarrett>{{cite news |last1=Jarrett |first1=Christian |title=News: Stapel – final report |work=BPS Updates |url=https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/news-2 |publisher=British Psychological Society|access-date=2 October 2023 |language=en |date=9 February 2013}}
* This editorial column first appeared in the journal of the BPS as: {{cite journal |last1=Jarrett |first1=Christian |journal=The Psychologist |volume=26 |issue=2 |date=February 2013 |title=News: Stapel – final report |page=88 |url=https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist-issue/2013/february/psychologist-february-2013 |url-access=subscription |display-authors=0}}</ref> Borsboom and Wagenmakers reviewed the Dutch language edition; the English translation of Stapel's {{lang|nl|Ontsporing}} by Nicholas J. L. Brown includes a note regarding "Chapter 10{{nbsp}}½":<ref>{{cite book |last1=Stapel |first1=Diederik |translator-last=Brown |translator-first=Nicholas J. L. |title=Faking Science: A True Story of Academic Fraud |date=2016-11-15 |page=215 |version = Version 1.10 |url=http://nick.brown.free.fr/stapel/FakingScience-20161115.pdf |access-date=7 October 2023 |id=Translated from the Dutch, in which it appeared with the title, {{lang|nl|Ontsporing}}}}</ref>{{bq|1=This last chapter is my own reinterpretation of some of the final lines of Raymond Carver's poem "The Gift" (from the collection ''Ultramarine'', 1986, Random House, New York), into which I have also woven a couple of lines from the ending of James Joyce's story "The Dead" (from ''The Dubliners'', 1990, Bantam Classics, New York). The title of the chapter is a reference to the chapter entitled "Parenthesis" in Julian Barnes's novel ''The History of the World in 10{{nbsp}}½ Chapters'' (1989, Jonathan Cape, London).|2=Diederik Stapel (2016). Appendix, ''Faking Science''}}
<!--Pending work to partially rewrite to avoid any copyvio
===Research culture===
The final Levelt report raises more controversial questions about the ways in which Stapel went unchallenged for so long. The report concludes that there was "a more general failure of scientific criticism in the peer community and a research culture that was excessively oriented to uncritical confirmation of one's own ideas and to finding appealing but theoretically superficial ad hoc results". It goes on to suggest that "not infrequently reviews [of social psychology journal articles] were strongly in favour of telling an interesting, elegant, concise and compelling story, possibly at the expense of the necessary scientific diligence."<ref name=jarrett/>


This aspect of the report has been criticised by the Social Psychology Section of the [[British Psychological Society]]. In a letter to the ''[[Times Higher Education Supplement]]'', on behalf of the Section, Stephen Gibson at [[York St John University]], points out:<ref name="gibson letter">{{cite journal |last= Gibson |first=Stephen |journal=The Psychologist |volume=26 |issue=2 |date=February 2013 |title=Letters: Flawed science? |pages=80–81 |url=https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist-issue/2013/february/psychologist-february-2013}}</ref> "... there are no grounds for concluding either that research fraud is any more common in social psychology than other disciplines or that its editorial processes are particularly poor at detecting it," adding that: "Our sub-discipline does not deserve the harm to its reputation that may be provoked by the careless implication of ''unique'' deficiencies." The Levelt report has also been criticised by the [[European Association of Social Psychology]] in an open letter to its members.<ref name=jarrett/>
In the February 2013 issue of ''The Psychologist'', Willem Levelt, together with the chairs of the other two investigating committees, published a rejoinder to these and other criticisms.<ref>Drenth, P., Levelt, W. and Noort, E., "Flawed science?", in ''The Psychologist'' (Letters), Vol 26, Part 2 (February 2013), pp. 80–81</ref> Drenth et al. acknowledge that they did not compare the situation in social psychology with other disciplines, but note that "such a comparative investigation was not part of the Committees' commission."{{uncited quote|date=June 2019}}

In a review for the [[Association for Psychological Science]], Stapel's 315-page memoirs, entitled ''Ontsporing'' ("Derailed"), is described by Dutch psychologists [[Denny Borsboom]] and [[Eric-Jan Wagenmakers]] as "priceless and revealing."<ref>{{cite web |author=Denny Borsboom and Eric-Jan Wagenmakers | title=Book Review: Derailed: The Rise and Fall of Diederik Stapel |url=https://www.ejwagenmakers.com/2013/BorsboomWagenmakers2013.pdf}}</ref> Stapel recounts that his misdemeanours began when he was sitting alone in his office and changed "an unexpected 2 into a 4". The reviewers describe the final chapter of the book as "unexpectedly beautiful" but note that it is full of lines taken from the works of writers [[Raymond Carver]] and [[James Joyce]].<ref name=jarrett/>

===Prosecution settlement===
In June 2013 Stapel agreed, in a settlement with the prosecutor, to perform 120 hours of [[community service]] and to lose the right to some benefits associated with his former job equivalent to a year and a half's worth of salary. In this way, he avoided further criminal prosecution.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2013/06/28/diederik-stapel-treft-schikking-met-justitie-om-vervolging-te-voorkomen/ |title=Diederik Stapel treft schikking met justitie om vervolging te voorkomen |author=Frank Huiskamp |work=NRC Handelsblad |date=28 June 2013 |access-date=13 July 2013}} (in Dutch)</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/06/stapel-gets-community-service-fo.html |title=Stapel Gets Community Service for Fabricating Studies |author=Yudhijit Bhattacharjee |publisher=sciencemag.org |date=28 June 2013 |access-date=13 July 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130706063903/http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/06/stapel-gets-community-service-fo.html|archive-date=6 July 2013 }}</ref>


In the February 2013 issue of ''The Psychologist'', Willem Levelt, together with the chairs of the other two investigating committees, published a rejoinder to these and other criticisms.<ref name="drenth letter"/> Drenth ''et al''. acknowledge that they did not compare the situation in social psychology with other disciplines, but note that "such a comparative investigation was not part of the Committees' commission."<ref name="drenth letter">{{cite journal |last1=Drenth |first1=Pieter |last2=Levelt |first2=Willem |last3=Noort |first3=Ed |journal=The Psychologist |volume=26 |issue=2 |date=February 2013 |title=Letters: Flawed science? |pages=80–81 |url=https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist-issue/2013/february/psychologist-february-2013}}
===List of withdrawn publications===
* Also published as </ref> NOTE ENDS (October 2023)-->
As of December, 2015, [[Retraction Watch]] reported that Stapel had 58 retractions.<ref>{{cite web|title=Diederik Stapel now has 58 retractions|url=http://retractionwatch.com/category/diederik-stapel/|website=Retraction Watch|access-date=22 March 2017}}</ref>
These include the following:
* {{cite journal|last1=Maringer|first1=Marcus|last2=Stapel|first2=Diederik|title=Correction or comparison? The effects of prime awareness on social judgments|journal=[[European Journal of Social Psychology]]|volume=39|issue=5|doi=10.1002/ejsp.569|pages=719–733|year=2009}}
* {{cite book|last1=Ruys|first1=Kirsten|last2=Stapel|first2=Diederik|last3=Aarts|first3=Henk|title="From (Unconscious) Perception to Emotion: A Global-to-Specific Unfolding View of Emotional Responding" (Chapter 4 of "Emotion Regulation and Well-Being")|date=21 September 2010|publisher=Springer|isbn=978-1-4419-6952-1|url=http://retractionwatch.com/2015/10/20/diederik-stapel-retraction-count-updated-to-57/#more-33211|access-date=22 March 2017}}
* {{cite journal|last1=Komen|first1=Willem|last2=Stapel|first2=Diederik|title=Interpretation versus Reference Framing: Assimilation and Contrast Effects in the Organizational Domain|journal=[[Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes]]|date=November 1998|volume=76|issue=2|pmid=9831519|doi=10.1006/obhd.1998.2802|pages=132–148}}
* {{cite journal|last1=Schwinghammer|first1=Saskia|last2=Stapel|first2=Diederik|title=The Effects of Different Types of Self–Activation on Social Comparison Orientation|journal=[[Social Cognition (journal)|Social Cognition]]|date=December 2006|volume=24|issue=6|doi=10.1521/soco.2006.24.6.703|pages=703–722|url=http://guilfordjournals.com/doi/pdf/10.1521/soco.2006.24.6.703}}


==Withdrawn publications==
{| class="wikitable sortable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"
===Retraction overview===
By December 2015, [[Retraction Watch]] reported that Stapel had 58 retracted publications, including journal articles and book chapters. This total number of retractions still stands as of {{as of|2023|bare=y}}.<ref name="RW 58"/>
These are listed in the table below:
{{sticky header}}{{static row numbers}}
{| class="wikitable sortable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed sticky-header static-row-numbers"
|+ class="nowrap" | Complete list of retracted publications
|+ class="nowrap" | Complete list of retracted publications
|+
!Title
!Title
!Year of publication
!Year of publication
!Journal
!Journal (Book)
!DOI and link to the retraction notice
!DOI and link to the retraction notice
|-
|-
Line 215: Line 215:
|2008
|2008
|European Journal of Social Psychology
|European Journal of Social Psychology
|[https://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ejsp.1913 10.1002/ejsp.1913]
|[https://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ejsp.1913 10.1002/ejsp.1913] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190807194940/https://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ejsp.1913 |date=7 August 2019 }}
|-
|-
|Affects of the unexpected: when inconsistency feels good (or bad)
|Affects of the unexpected: when inconsistency feels good (or bad)
Line 245: Line 245:
|2009
|2009
|Psychological Inquiry
|Psychological Inquiry
|[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1047840X.2012.722053 10.1080/1047840X.2012.722053]
|[https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2012.722053 10.1080/1047840X.2012.722053]
|-
|-
|Behavioural effects of automatic interpersonal versus intergroup social comparison
|Behavioural effects of automatic interpersonal versus intergroup social comparison
Line 310: Line 310:
|2009
|2009
|European Journal of Social Psychology
|European Journal of Social Psychology
|[https://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.1898 10.1002/ejsp.1898]
|[https://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.1898 10.1002/ejsp.1898] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220310222240/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.1898 |date=10 March 2022 }}
|-
|-
|Racist biases in legal decisions are reduced by a justice focus
|Racist biases in legal decisions are reduced by a justice focus
|2010
|2010
|European Journal of Social Psychology
|European Journal of Social Psychology
|[https://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.1897 10.1002/ejsp.1897]
|[https://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.1897 10.1002/ejsp.1897] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190809112228/https://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.1897 |date=9 August 2019 }}
|-
|-
|The secret life of emotions
|The secret life of emotions
Line 370: Line 370:
|2011
|2011
|Science
|Science
|[https://science.sciencemag.org/content/334/6060/1202.1 10.1126/science.334.6060.1202-a]
|[https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.334.6060.1202-a 10.1126/science.334.6060.1202-a]
|-
|-
|From (Unconscious) Perception to Emotion: A Global-to-Specific Unfolding View of Emotional Responding
|From (Unconscious) Perception to Emotion: A Global-to-Specific Unfolding View of Emotional Responding
|2010
|2010
|{{anchor|Chapter 4}}Chapter 4 in: (''Emotion Regulation and Well-Being'')<ref>{{cite book |editor1=Ivan Nyklíček |editor2=Ad Vingerhoets |editor3=Marcel Zeelenberg |title=Emotion Regulation and Well-Being |date=2011 |publisher=Springer |location=New York; Heidelberg |isbn=978-1-4419-6952-1}}</ref>
|Emotion Regulation and Well-Being
|[https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4419-6953-8_20 10.1007/978-1-4419-6953-8_20]
|[https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4419-6953-8_20 10.1007/978-1-4419-6953-8_20]
|}
|}


===Chapters in edited books===
==Selected scientific publications==
Several chapters written or coauthored by Stapel in reference books were called into question in the ''Flawed Science'' report.
* {{cite journal | last1 = Stapel | first1 = Diederik A. | last2 = Koomen | first2 = Willem | authorlink2 = Willem Koomen | year = 2001 | title = I, we, and the effects of others on me: How self-construal moderates social comparison effects | journal = [[Journal of Personality and Social Psychology]] | pmid = 11374748 | volume = 80 | issue = 5 | pages = 766–781 | author-mask = — | doi = 10.1037/0022-3514.80.5.766 }}
The Levelt committee noted fraud in three chapters in academic books, each listed with the note: "Theoretical article, in important respect based on fraudulent articles"; they regarded the evidence in these cases sufficient to conclude "fraud established".{{Sfn|''Flawed Science''|2012|pp=25–27, 76}} One of these chapters was subject to a formal retraction notice in the academic press and is included in Retraction Watch's database. The three chapters are listed in the table below:
* {{cite journal | last1 = Stapel | first1 = Diederik A. | last2 = Koomen | first2 = Willem | year = 2001 | title = When we wonder what it all means: Interpretation goals facilitate accessibility and stereotyping effects | journal = [[Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin]] | doi = 10.1177/0146167201278001 | volume = 27 | issue = 8 | pages = 915–929 | s2cid = 145617463 | author-mask = — }}
{{static row numbers}}
** This paper is one of three retracted by the journal.<ref>{{Cite journal | doi = 10.1177/0146167212474240 | title = Retraction of "Terror Management and Stereotyping: Why Do People Stereotype when Mortality is Salient?," "Distinctiveness is Key: How Different Types of Self-Other Similarity Moderate Social Comparison Effects," and "When We Wonder What It All Means: Interpretation Goals Facilitate Accessibility and Stereotyping Effects" | journal = [[Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin]]| volume = 39 | issue = 2 | pages = 264 | date =February 2013 | pmid = 23386661| s2cid = 206444897 }}</ref>
{| class="wikitable sortable mw-collapsible mw-collapsed static-row-numbers"
* {{cite journal | last1 = Stapel | first1 = Diederik A. | last2 = Tesser | first2 = A. | year = 2001 | title = Self-activation increases social comparison | pmid = 11642358 | journal = [[Journal of Personality and Social Psychology]] | volume = 81 | issue = 4 | pages = 742–750 | author-mask = — | doi = 10.1037/0022-3514.81.4.742 }}
|+ class="nowrap" | List of book chapters with "fraud established"
* {{cite journal | last1 = Stapel | first1 = Diederik A. | last2 = Koomen | first2 = Willem | authorlink2 = Willem Koomen | last3 = Ruijs | first3 = K. | year = 2002 | title = The effects of diffuse and distinct affect | journal = [[Journal of Personality and Social Psychology]] | pmid = 12088133 | volume = 83 | issue = 1 | pages = 60–74 | author-mask = — | doi = 10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.60 }}
!Chapter title
* {{cite book | last1 = Stapel | first1 = Diederik A. | year = 2003 | chapter = Making sense of hot cognition: Why and when description influences our feelings and judgments | editor1-first = J.P | editor1-last = Forgas | editor2-first = K.D. | editor2-last = Williams | editor3-first = W. | editor3-last = von Hippel | title = Social judgments: Implicit and explicit processes | pages = 227–250 | location = New York, NY, USA | publisher = Cambridge | author-mask = — }}
!Year
* {{cite journal | last1 = Stapel | first1 = Diederik A. | last2 = Siegwart Lindenberg | date = 8 April 2011 | doi = 10.1126/science.1201068 | title = Coping with Chaos: How Disordered Contexts Promote Stereotyping and Discrimination | journal = [[Science (journal)|Science]] | volume = 332 | issue = 6026 | pages = 251–253 | author-mask = — | first2 = S. | pmid=21474762| bibcode = 2011Sci...332..251S | s2cid = 206531492 }}
!Editors
** According to the [[Trouw]] newspaper, this article is based on faked data.<ref>{{cite news | last = Kreulen | first = Edwin | date = 1 November 2011 | url = http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/6700/Wetenschap/article/detail/3006141/2011/11/01/Diederik-Stapel-verzon-list-na-list-en-duldde-geen-enkele-tegenspraak.dhtml | title = Diederik Stapel verzon list na list en duldde geen enkele tegenspraak | work = Trouw | quote = ''(English translation)'' Stapel knew at that moment exactly what he expected, which could be inferred yesterday from the words of Pim Levelt. 'The science article is based on fake data', was his verdict, just like at least 29 other publications by Stapel, and probably more. ''(Dutch original)'' Stapel wist op dat moment precies wat hij verwachtte, viel gisteren af te leiden uit de woorden van onderzoeker Pim Levelt. 'Het Science-artikel berust op gefabriceerde gegevens', was zijn oordeel, net als in ieder geval 29 andere publicaties van Stapel, en vermoedelijk nog meer. }}</ref>
!Publisher
**The article was retracted by the journal<ref>{{cite journal | doi = 10.1126/science.334.6060.1202-a | pmid = 22144595 | title = Retraction | date = 2 December 2011 | journal = [[Science (journal)|Science]] | volume = 334 | issue = 6060 | page = 1202 | last1 = Stapel | first1 = D. A. | last2 = Lindenberg | first2 = S. }}</ref> following an Expression of Concern.<ref>{{cite journal | title = Editorial Expression of Concern | journal = [[Science (journal)|Science]] | first = Bruce | last = Alberts | date = 11 November 2011 | volume = 334 | issue = 6057 | page = 760 | doi = 10.1126/science.1216027 | pmid = 22045832 | bibcode = 2011Sci...334Q.760A | doi-access = free }}</ref>
!Book
!Notes
!ISBN (Pages)
|-
|"In the mind of the beholder: The interpretation comparison model of accessibility effects"
|2007
|D.A. Stapel; J. Suls
| Psychology Press
|''Assimilation and Contrast in Social Psychology''
|
|(313–327)
|-
|"Priming as proxy: Understanding the subjectivity of social life"
|2011
|K. C. Klauer; A. Voss; C. Stahl
|Guilford Publications
|''Cognitive Methods in Social Psychology''
|Republished 2012 in abridged form with Stapel chapter excised.<ref>{{citation|editor1= K. C. Klauer|editor2=A. Voss |editor3=C. Stahl |title=Cognitive Methods in Social Psychology |date=9 November 2012 |location=New York |publisher=Guilford Press |isbn=978-1-4625-0913-3 |edition=Abridged first|postscript=.}} Publisher's note: "The hardcover edition of this book contained a chapter titled 'Priming as Proxy: Understanding the Subjectivity of Social Life' by D. A. Stapel. This chapter has been retracted by joint decision of the publisher and the book's editors."</ref>
|{{isbn|978-1-4625-0913-3}} (148–183)
|-
|"From (Unconscious) Perception to Emotion: A Global-to-Specific Unfolding View of Emotional Responding"
|2011
|I. Nyklíček; A. Vingerhoets; M. Zeelenberg
|Springer
|''Emotion Regulation and Well-Being''
| (Co-authored). [[#Chapter 4|Included in ''Retraction Watch'' listing]]
|{{isbn|978-1-4419-6952-1}}
|}

The Noort committee, examining publications stemming from Stapel's time at the University of Groningen, also considered a number of book chapters in edited works suspect. In the case of these works, having less surviving original data available to examine, the Noort committee concluded with less certainty only "evidence of fraud".
In the ''Flawed Science'' report they note the following chapters, under the heading:
"The following book chapters are (partly) based on findings of articles, in which the Committees have found evidence of fraud:"{{Sfn|''Flawed Science''|2012|pp=81–82, 95}}
* {{cite book | last1 = Stapel | first1 = Diederik A.|last2 = Koomen |first2 = Willem |date=2001 |chapter=Let's not forget the past when we go to the future: On our knowledge of knowledge accessibility effects | editor-first = G. B. | editor-last =Moskowitz |title=Cognitive social psychology: The Princeton symposium on the legacy and future of social cognition |pages=229–246 |location=Mahwah NJ, U.S |publisher=Lawrence Erlbaum | author1-mask=—{{nbsp}} | author2-mask={{nbsp}}|id=[Coauthored]}}
* {{cite book | last1 = Stapel | first1 = Diederik A. | date = 2003 | chapter = Making sense of hot cognition: Why and when description influences our feelings and judgments | editor1 = J. P Forgas | editor2 = K. D. Williams | editor3 = W. von Hippel | title = Social judgments: Implicit and explicit processes | pages = 227–250 | location = New York | publisher = Cambridge University Press | author1-mask= —{{nbsp}} |id=(Sydney Symposium of Social Psychology series)}}
* {{cite book |last1=Martin |first1=Leonard L. |last2=Strack |first2=Fritz |last3=Stapel |first3=Diederik A. |editor1 =Abraham Tesser |editor2=Norbert Schwarz |title=Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Intraindividual Processes |date=January 2001 |publisher=Wiley |pages=236–256 |chapter= What's on our mind and how did it get there? The role of knowledge accessibility in social psychological phenomena| author1-mask={{nbsp}} | author2-mask={{nbsp}} | author3-mask= —{{nbsp}} |id=[Coauthored] }}

==="Coping with chaos"===
The first journal article retraction occurred a month after Tilburg University announced that it had found evidence of fraud in Stapel's work. In December 2011, the journal ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'' posted a retraction notice for Stapel's co-authored paper entitled "Coping with chaos: How disordered contexts promote stereotyping and discrimination".<ref name="R watch 2011">{{citation |last=Marcus|first= Adam |title= ''Science'' drops other shoe in Stapel case, retracts recent paper on chaos |work=Retraction Watch |date=1 December 2011 |access-date=17 January 2012 |publisher=The Center for Scientific Integrity | url=https://retractionwatch.com/2011/12/01/science-drops-other-shoe-in-stapel-case-retracts-recent-paper-on-chaos/}}
* The retracted ''Science'' paper: {{cite journal | last1 = Stapel | first1 = Diederik A. | last2 = Lindenberg | first2 = Siegwart | date=8 April 2011 | doi = 10.1126/science.1201068 | title = Coping with Chaos: How Disordered Contexts Promote Stereotyping and Discrimination | journal= [[Science (journal)|Science]] | volume = 332 | issue = 6026 | pages = 251–253 | pmid=21474762| bibcode = 2011Sci...332..251S | s2cid = 206531492 }}{{Retracted|doi=10.1126/science.334.6060.1202-a|pmid=22144595|http://retractionwatch.com/2011/11/01/science-expresses-concern-about-stapel-paper/ ''Retraction Watch''|http://retractionwatch.com/2011/12/01/science-drops-other-shoe-in-stapel-case-retracts-recent-paper-on-chaos/ ''Retraction Watch''}}</ref> The journal expressed initial concern regarding the paper's validity on 1 November.<ref name="NatureBlog">{{cite news|last=Callaway |first=Ewen |title=Dutch psychology fraudster issues first retraction |work= Nature News Blog |date=1 December 2011|access-date=17 January 2012|url=http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/12/stapel.html}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | title = Editorial Expression of Concern | journal = [[Science (journal)|Science]] | first = Bruce | last = Alberts | date = 11 November 2011 | volume = 334 | issue = 6057 | page = 760 | doi = 10.1126/science.1216027 | pmid = 22045832 | bibcode = 2011Sci...334Q.760A | doi-access = | s2cid = 28061110 }}</ref> The retraction statement in ''Science'' says:<ref>{{cite journal | doi = 10.1126/science.334.6060.1202-a | pmid = 22144595 | title = Retraction | date = 2 December 2011 | journal = [[Science (journal)|Science]] |volume = 334 |issue = 6060 |page = 1202 |last1 = Stapel |first1 = D. A. |last2 = Lindenberg | first2 = Siegwart}}</ref>

{{bq|Our report "Coping with chaos: How disordered contexts promote stereotyping and discrimination" reported the effects of the physical environment on human stereotyping and discriminatory behavior. On 31 October 2011, the University of Tilburg held a press conference to announce findings of their investigation into possible data fraud on the part of author Stapel. These findings of the university's interim report included fabrication of data in this Science paper. Therefore, we are retracting the paper, with apologies from author Stapel. Coauthor Lindenberg was in no way involved in the generation of the data, and agrees to the retraction of the paper.}}
Following the retraction, coauthor of the "Chaos" paper, Siegwart Lindenberg, told the journal in an email, "Stapel's doing had caught me as much by surprise as it did anybody else. I never had any suspicion. He was a very trusted man, dean of the faculty, brilliant, successful, no indications for me to be distrustful. In this, I was not the only one. I also had no trouble with the results of the experiments."<ref name="NatureBlog"/>

===Selfishness in carnivores===
The research result, obtained by Stapel and co-workers [[Roos Vonk]] and Marcel Zeelenberg, that [[carnivore]]s are more selfish than [[vegetarian]]s, which was widely publicized in Dutch media,<ref>{{multiref|1={{cite news |title=Meat eaters are selfish and less social |url=http://www.dutchdailynews.com/meat-eaters-selfish-less-social/ |date=30 August 2011 |access-date= 17 September 2011 |work=Dutch Daily News |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20111106005302/https://www.dutchdailynews.com/meat-eaters-selfish-less-social/ |archive-date=6 November 2011|postscript=;}} {{in lang|en}}. |2={{cite news |title=Study of meat eaters are selfish and less social was a hoax |url=http://www.dutchdailynews.com/meat-eaters-are-selfish-hoax |work=Dutch Daily News |date=September 8, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111118040210/http://www.dutchdailynews.com/meat-eaters-are-selfish-hoax |archive-date=18 November 2011 |postscript=;}} {{in lang|en}}.}}</ref> was suspected and later turned out to be based on falsified data.<ref>{{cite news |title=Meat eaters absolved, professor in the dock |url=http://www.dutchnews.nl/features/2011/09/meat_eaters_absolved_professor.php |date=8 September 2011 |access-date=17 September 2011 |work=DutchNews.nl |postscript=;}} {{in lang|en}}.</ref> The research result had not yet been published in a scientific journal; only a press bulletin was released.<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Vanheste |first=Tomas |title=Onder psychologen |trans-title=Among psychologists |url=https://www.vn.nl/onder-psychologen-2/ |date=13 September 2011 |access-date=31 October 2011 |archive-date=22 February 2013 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20130222165141/http://www.vn.nl/Archief/Wetenschap/Artikel-Wetenschapmilieu/Onder-psychologen.htm |magazine=Vrij Nederland |language=nl}}</ref>


==Other publications==
==Other publications==
*Stapel, Diederik; ''Ontsporing'' ("Derailment"); [[Prometheus Books]], November 2012; {{ISBN|90-446-2312-5}}
* Stapel, Diederik (November 2012). {{lang|nl|Ontsporing}} ('Derailment'). [[Prometheus Books]] {{ISBN|90-446-2312-5}}
**[http://nick.brown.free.fr/stapel/ English translation as a free download in PDF format]
** [http://nick.brown.free.fr/stapel/ English translation as a free download in PDF format]
*A.H.J. Dautzenberg & Diederik Stapel; ''De fictiefabriek. Een bevrijdingsroman in brieven'' ("The Fiction Factory. A Liberating Epistolary Novel"); Atlas Contact, September 2014; {{ISBN|978-90-254-4269-9}}
* Dautzenberg, A. H. J.; Stapel, Diederik (September 2014). {{lang|nl|De fictiefabriek. Een bevrijdingsroman in brieven}} ['The Fiction Factory. A Liberating Epistolary Novel']. Atlas Contact. {{in lang|nl}} {{ISBN|978-90-254-4269-9}}


== See also ==
== See also ==
Line 398: Line 443:
* [[Schön scandal]]
* [[Schön scandal]]
* [[Jonathan Pruitt]]
* [[Jonathan Pruitt]]

==Notes==
{{Notelist | refs=
{{efn|name="ds statement"|A longer excerpt from Stapel's response to the joint committees' interim report, in the original Dutch with English translation, follows:<ref name="Oct statement"/>
{{verse translation|lang=nl
|Het is moeilijk de juiste woorden te vinden. De commissie heeft gesproken. En nu moet ik en wil ik iets zeggen, hoe onmogelijk het ook is het juiste te zeggen.
Ik heb gefaald als wetenschapper, als onderzoeker. Ik heb onderzoeksgegevens aangepast en onderzoeken gefingeerd. Niet een keer, maar meerdere keren, en niet even, maar gedurende een langere tijd. Ik realiseer me dat ik door dit gedrag mijn directe collega's in verbijstering en boosheid heb achtergelaten en mijn vakgebied, de sociale psychologie, in een kwaad daglicht heb gesteld. Ik schaam me daarvoor en ik heb daar grote spijt van.{{nbsp}}[...]
Ik hecht er aan te benadrukken dat ik hen nooit op de hoogte heb gebracht van mijn oneigenlijk gedrag. Ik bied mijn collega's, mijn promovendi en de gehele academische gemeenschap mijn oprechte excuses aan. Ik ben me bewust van het leed en het verdriet dat ik bij hen heb veroorzaakt.
|It's hard to find the right words. The committee has spoken. And now I have to and want to say something, no matter how impossible it is to say the right thing.
I have manipulated research data and faked studies. Not once, but several times, not for a short period, but over a longer period of time. I realize that by this behavior I have left my immediate colleagues bewildered and angry and have put my field of study, social psychology, in a bad light. I'm ashamed of that and I deeply regret it.{{nbsp}}[...]
I would like to emphasize that I never informed them of my improper behavior. I sincerely apologize to my colleagues, my PhD students and the entire academic community. I am aware of the suffering and sadness I have caused them.|attr1=Excerpt of statement by Diederik Stapel (31 October 2011), reported in ''[[Brabants Dagblad]]''|attr2=Translation from the Dutch (machine translation)}} }}
}}


== References ==
== References ==
=== Reports ===
Joint reports of the investigating committees:
* Final report: {{cite report |url=https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/sites/default/files/download/Final%20report%20Flawed%20Science_2.pdf |title=''Flawed science'': The fraudulent research practices of social psychologist Diederik Stapel |author1=Levelt Committee |author2=Noort Committee |author3=Drenth Committee |date=28 November 2012 |access-date=14 February 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130112204021/http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/nl/nieuws-en-agenda/finalreportLevelt.pdf|archive-date=12 January 2013|ref={{sfnref|''Flawed Science'' |2012}} }}
* Interim report: {{cite report|ref={{sfnref|Interim Levelt Report|2011}}|others=Coordinated by the Levelt Committee of Tilburg University |author1=((Levelt Committee)) |author2=((Noort Committee)) |author3=((Drenth Committee)) |title=Interim report regarding the breach of scientific integrity by Prof. D. A. Stapel |date=31 October 2011 |publisher=Tilburg University |access-date=17 January 2012 |url=https://studylib.net/doc/10483458/interim-report-regarding-the-breach-of-scientific--tilbur...|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160627142859/https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/upload/547aa461-6cd1-48cd-801b-61c434a73f79_interim-report.pdf |archive-date=27 June 2016}}


=== Footnotes ===
=== Footnotes ===
{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}


=== Bibliography ===
== Further reading ==
* Frank van Kolfschooten (October 2012). ''Ontspoorde wetenschap'' ('Derailed Science'); De Kring publishers {{ISBN|94-91567-02-0}}
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20160627142859/https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/upload/547aa461-6cd1-48cd-801b-61c434a73f79_interim-report.pdf ''Flawed Science. The fraudulent research practices of social psychologist Diederik Stapel''. (Final Report of the Stapel Committees, November 2012)]
* {{cite news |last= Kreulen |first= Edwin |date= 1 November 2011 |work= Trouw |title= Diederik Stapel verzon list na list en duldde geen enkele tegenspraak|url= http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/6700/Wetenschap/article/detail/3006141/2011/11/01/Diederik-Stapel-verzon-list-na-list-en-duldde-geen-enkele-tegenspraak.dhtml | trans-quote= Stapel knew at that moment exactly what he expected, which could be inferred yesterday from the words of Pim Levelt. 'The science article is based on fake data', was his verdict, just like at least 29 other publications by Stapel, and probably more. |quote= Stapel wist op dat moment precies wat hij verwachtte, viel gisteren af te leiden uit de woorden van onderzoeker Pim Levelt. 'Het Science-artikel berust op gefabriceerde gegevens', was zijn oordeel, net als in ieder geval 29 andere publicaties van Stapel, en vermoedelijk nog meer. |language = nl }}
* Frank van Kolfschooten; ''Ontspoorde wetenschap'' ("Derailed Science"); De Kring publishers; October 2012; {{ISBN|94-91567-02-0}}
* {{cite journal |last1=Markowitz |first1=David M. |last2=Hancock |first2=Jeffrey T. |title=Linguistic Traces of a Scientific Fraud: The Case of Diederik Stapel |journal=PLOS ONE |date=25 August 2014 |volume=9 |issue=8 |pages=e105937 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0105937|doi-access=free |pmid=25153333 |pmc=4143312 |bibcode=2014PLoSO...9j5937M }}


== External links ==
== External links ==
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20130112204021/http://www.tilburguniversity.edu/nl/nieuws-en-agenda/finalreportLevelt.pdf ''Flawed Science. The fraudulent research practices of social psychologist Diederik Stapel'']. (Final joint report of the Stapel Committees, November 2012)
* {{OL author|OL7035012A}}
* {{cite web|website=The Retraction Watch Database |title=Database search, author(s) field – 'Diederik A Stapel' |location=New York |publisher=The Center for Scientific Integrity | issn=2692-465X |url=http://retractiondatabase.org/RetractionSearch.aspx#?auth%3dDiederik%2bA%2bStapel}} [Returns a maximum of 50 items per search query. To narrow results, additional [http://retractiondatabase.org/ search parameter] fields are available.]
* {{Worldcat id|lccn-n2001090685}}


{{Authority control}}
{{Authority control}}
Line 417: Line 479:
[[Category:1966 births]]
[[Category:1966 births]]
[[Category:Academic scandals]]
[[Category:Academic scandals]]
[[Category:Academic staff of the University of Groningen]]
[[Category:Academic staff of Tilburg University]]
[[Category:Dutch social psychologists]]
[[Category:Dutch social psychologists]]
[[Category:Living people]]
[[Category:Living people]]
[[Category:People from Oegstgeest]]
[[Category:People from Oegstgeest]]
[[Category:People involved in scientific misconduct incidents]]
[[Category:People involved in scientific misconduct incidents]]
[[Category:Tilburg University faculty]]
[[Category:University of Amsterdam alumni]]
[[Category:University of Amsterdam alumni]]
[[Category:University of Groningen faculty]]

Revision as of 00:04, 13 August 2024

Diederik Alexander Stapel (born 19 October 1966) is a Dutch former professor of social psychology at Tilburg University.[1] In 2011 Tilburg University suspended Stapel for fabricating and manipulating data for his research publications. This scientific misconduct took place over a number of years and affected dozens of his publications.[2][3] By 2015, fifty-eight of Stapel's publications had been retracted.[4] He has been described in coverage by the New York Times as "the biggest con man in academic science".[5]

Early life

Stapel was born in the village of Oegstgeest, near Leiden, the youngest of four children. His father worked as a civil engineer.[5][6]

After completing his schooling, Stapel studied drama and media studies at East Stroudsburg University in Pennsylvania before moving back to the Netherlands for an undergraduate degree in psychology.[5] Stapel obtained an MA degree in psychology and communication science from the University of Amsterdam in 1991. From the same university he obtained his PhD cum laude in social psychology in 1997; his dissertation was on assimilation and contrast effects.[1] Before embarking on his doctoral research, in 1991–1992, Stapel returned to the US for study, undertaking a program on behavioral decision making at the University of Chicago's Graduate School of Business.[7]

He married in 1997; Stapel and his wife had first met in high school.

Career

After gaining his doctorate, Stapel continued at UvA as a fellow of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) for three years.[8] Stapel became a professor at the University of Groningen in 2000[1] and moved to Tilburg University in 2006, where he cofounded TiBER, the Tilburg Institute for Behavioral Economics Research.[1] In September 2010, Stapel became dean of the social and behavioral sciences faculty.[1]

Stapel received the Career Trajectory Award from the Society of Experimental Social Psychology in 2009, which has since been retracted.[9] He voluntarily surrendered his PhD title to the University of Amsterdam in November 2011, noting that his "behavior of the past years are inconsistent with the duties associated with the doctorate". This action was taken into account in the decision of Dutch prosecutors to not pursue criminal actions.[10]

Scientific misconduct

Investigations

In September 2011, Tilburg University suspended Stapel due to his fabrication of data used in research publications. The university announced an investigation of his work.[11][12]

On 31 October 2011, a committee entrusted with investigating "the extent and nature of the breach of scientific integrity committed by Mr D.A. Stapel", formed by the Rector Magnificus of Tilburg University and chaired by Willem ("Pim") Levelt, published an interim report regarding Stapel's activities at the three Dutch universities where he had worked.[13]

Stapel provided the investigating committees with a list of his publications that contained fictitious data, acknowledging that it may not be complete.[13]

An extensive report analyzes all 130 of Stapel's articles and twenty-four book chapters.[14] A website was set up on 27 March 2012 to publish interim findings.[14][15][16] According to the first findings, out of an initial batch of twenty Stapel publications studied by the Levelt committee, twelve journal articles were fabricated and three contributions to books were also fraudulent.[14][17] The Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant reported that the final report was due on 28 November 2012, and that a book by Stapel was to be released around the same time.[18]

"We have some 30 papers in peer-reviewed journals where we are actually sure that they are fake, and there are more to come," Pim Levelt, chair of the committee investigating Stapel's work said in a media statement.[19]

Suspicions raised

The Levelt joint committees' reports acknowledged three unnamed young Tilburg University researchers as the whistleblowers for the case. The whistleblowers had become suspicious when one noticed anomalous data they had received from Stapel. Subsequent discussion with Stapel did not allay their concerns. During a research meeting where Stapel presented data for a new study, the data fitted the hypothesis so perfectly that someone joked "It is as if he made up these data himself."[20] The three spent several months conducting their own enquiries using data files Stapel had supplied. They found an entire row of scores appearing identically in two studies, which strongly suggested of fraud. Once they felt they had sufficient evidence, they approached the head of the Department of Social Psychology, Marcel Zeelenberg. The students' evidence was convincing enough that Zeelenburg brought it directly to the rector magnificus, Philip Eijlander. Official investigations were set in motion within days by Tilburg University, which were soon joined by the UvA and the University of Groningen.[5][21] Stapel claimed that the data was collected by his contacts in schools. When the rector asked Stapel for those contacts, Stapel said the schools did not actually exist. This was the smoking gun.[20]

The Levelt report also noted two professors who claim they had previously seen examples of Stapel's data that were "too good to be true."[13]

Methods

Stapel controlled the data in his lab: when students asked to see the raw data, they were often given excuses.[22] There were occasions when Stapel's data were given to an assistant to be entered into a computer. This assistant would then return the data file to Stapel. The researcher analyzing the data would then receive the file directly from Stapel.[13]

Curiosity regarding datasets was discouraged by Stapel and, at times, persistent or perceptive questioning would be met with apparent hostility. In one case the Levelt committee reports, a PhD student who was querying unusual data was told by Stapel: "If you want to be taken on here you will have to demonstrate that you can get something finished, so just write up the results." Several PhD students told the investigation that they had been pressured into silence by Stapel's untoward use of his power over them.[23]

As his process for fraudulent research developed, by his Tilburg years his general method was to formulate in full all the elements of a proposed study – an experiment, with its theoretical grounding, the hypotheses, methods, stimuli, questionnaires, and even participants' rewards – and then create the fictitious data which he would then provide to colleagues and students for further analysis. He would pretend to run the experiments with the help of unnamed research assistants. Instead of doing so, he would make up the data. A plausible explanation would be offered for excluding others from data collection. For example, several experiments were to be run in schools; Stapel made it known that he had access to these by special arrangements which would be endangered by involving other researchers. The purported schools preferred to deal with Stapel alone, whom they knew and trusted and would be bothered by having additional, unknown researchers involved.[24] Earlier in his career, going back at least to 2004, rather than faking data, the investigations found he appears to have manipulated data —for example, by simply altering numerals in the recorded outcome measures, so that the calculated means of scores for the contrasted experimental conditions would appear to differ, in support of his tested hypothesis.[25]

Stapel's supply of pre-collected data to his graduate students was noted as being atypical for masters students and PhD candidates, but was presented by Stapel as an advantage to them, which they did perceive as helpful and even a luxury.[26] This process, even apart from the fraudulent data, was inappropriate, with most of the students graduating without ever actually completing an experiment.[13]

Stapel's scientific misconduct went undetected for at least fifteen years. The Levelt report concludes that his academic reputation was, in part, the reason his illicit activities were able to continue for such a length of time. At Tilburg he was considered a leading researcher with a high profile both in academic psychology and in the popular media in the Netherlands. His colleagues and students generally viewed him positively. The report says he had a reputation as being "charismatic, friendly and incredibly talented".[27] Many students became his personal friends.[5]

Findings

On 28 November 2012, the final joint report, from the three investigating committees, was published.[27]

The interim report concluded that Stapel falsified or fabricated data for at least 30 publications.[13] When the final report was released, that number had risen to fifty-five. They were unable to determine whether Stapel fabricated or manipulated data for his 1997 dissertation at the University of Amsterdam (UvA), because the data had been destroyed, in common with data for much of Stapel's earlier work. The university announced that it would investigate whether it would be possible to retract Stapel's PhD because of exceptionally unworthy scientific behavior.[28][29][30]

The interim report stated that Stapel had caused severe damage to young people at the beginning of their careers, as well as to the general confidence in science, in particular social psychology.[13] The University of Tilburg announced that it would pursue criminal prosecution of Stapel.[31]

Despite being critical of an overarching shortfall in collective academic responsibility, the investigating committees emphasized that Stapel acted alone in all cases of known misconduct. The report found no indication that any coauthors, PhD students, or others were aware of the fraudulent conduct. The reports did suggest that the data were in some instances so unusual that suspicion may have been reasonable.[32] The interim report names 19 theses prepared with data delivered by Stapel. Of those, seven have been cleared. There are various degrees of suspicion about the remaining twelve. The report advised that the degrees of the students involved should not be retracted.[33]

Prosecution settlement

In June 2013 Stapel agreed, in a settlement with the prosecutor, to perform 120 hours of community service and to lose the right to some benefits associated with his former job equivalent to a year and a half's worth of salary. In this way, he avoided further criminal prosecution.[34][35]

Reaction

Stapel response

Responding to the interim report, Stapel stated:[36][a]

I have failed as a scientist, as a researcher. I have manipulated research data and faked studies. Not once, but several times, not for a short period, but over a longer period of time. I realize that by this behavior I have left my immediate colleagues bewildered and angry and have put my field of study, social psychology, in a bad light. I'm ashamed of that and I deeply regret it. ... it is important to emphasize that I never informed my colleagues of my inappropriate behavior. I offer my colleagues, my PhD students, and the complete academic community my sincere apologies. I am aware of the suffering and sorrow that I caused to them ...

In his memoirs published in November 2012, Stapel admits his fraud, but protests against the accusation in the interim report that he was a cunning, manipulative fraud with a plan.

In academia

In a review for the Association for Psychological Science's Observer, Stapel's Ontsporing ('Derailment'), a book-length memoir, is described by Dutch psychologists Denny Borsboom and Eric-Jan Wagenmakers as "revealing". In the work, Stapel recounts that his transgressions began when he was sitting alone in his office and changed "an unexpected 2 into a 4". The reviewers suggest the memoir may provide insights into systemic failures within research science, saying that in his account of the affair, "Stapel appears to underscore the conclusions from the Levelt committee" in this regard. On their reading, there are also the personal frailties that contributed to the fraud on show: They call it a "... a captivating book, even as it is transparently self-serving. On a personal level, it is an emotional account of a fraudster's insecurities, fears, and self-hatred."[37] The reviewers describe the final chapter of the book as "unexpectedly beautiful" but consider that many of its lines are "copied" from the works of writers Raymond Carver and James Joyce, without due acknowledgement.[38] Borsboom and Wagenmakers reviewed the Dutch language edition; the English translation of Stapel's Ontsporing by Nicholas J. L. Brown includes a note regarding "Chapter 10 ½":[39]

This last chapter is my own reinterpretation of some of the final lines of Raymond Carver's poem "The Gift" (from the collection Ultramarine, 1986, Random House, New York), into which I have also woven a couple of lines from the ending of James Joyce's story "The Dead" (from The Dubliners, 1990, Bantam Classics, New York). The title of the chapter is a reference to the chapter entitled "Parenthesis" in Julian Barnes's novel The History of the World in 10 ½ Chapters (1989, Jonathan Cape, London).

— Diederik Stapel (2016). Appendix, Faking Science

Withdrawn publications

Retraction overview

By December 2015, Retraction Watch reported that Stapel had 58 retracted publications, including journal articles and book chapters. This total number of retractions still stands as of 2023.[4] These are listed in the table below:

Chapters in edited books

Several chapters written or coauthored by Stapel in reference books were called into question in the Flawed Science report. The Levelt committee noted fraud in three chapters in academic books, each listed with the note: "Theoretical article, in important respect based on fraudulent articles"; they regarded the evidence in these cases sufficient to conclude "fraud established".[41] One of these chapters was subject to a formal retraction notice in the academic press and is included in Retraction Watch's database. The three chapters are listed in the table below:

List of book chapters with "fraud established"
Chapter title Year Editors Publisher Book Notes ISBN (Pages)
"In the mind of the beholder: The interpretation comparison model of accessibility effects" 2007 D.A. Stapel; J. Suls Psychology Press Assimilation and Contrast in Social Psychology (313–327)
"Priming as proxy: Understanding the subjectivity of social life" 2011 K. C. Klauer; A. Voss; C. Stahl Guilford Publications Cognitive Methods in Social Psychology Republished 2012 in abridged form with Stapel chapter excised.[42] ISBN 978-1-4625-0913-3 (148–183)
"From (Unconscious) Perception to Emotion: A Global-to-Specific Unfolding View of Emotional Responding" 2011 I. Nyklíček; A. Vingerhoets; M. Zeelenberg Springer Emotion Regulation and Well-Being (Co-authored). Included in Retraction Watch listing ISBN 978-1-4419-6952-1

The Noort committee, examining publications stemming from Stapel's time at the University of Groningen, also considered a number of book chapters in edited works suspect. In the case of these works, having less surviving original data available to examine, the Noort committee concluded with less certainty only "evidence of fraud". In the Flawed Science report they note the following chapters, under the heading: "The following book chapters are (partly) based on findings of articles, in which the Committees have found evidence of fraud:"[43]

  •     (2001). "Let's not forget the past when we go to the future: On our knowledge of knowledge accessibility effects". In Moskowitz, G. B. (ed.). Cognitive social psychology: The Princeton symposium on the legacy and future of social cognition. Mahwah NJ, U.S: Lawrence Erlbaum. pp. 229–246. [Coauthored].
  •   (2003). "Making sense of hot cognition: Why and when description influences our feelings and judgments". In J. P Forgas; K. D. Williams; W. von Hippel (eds.). Social judgments: Implicit and explicit processes. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 227–250. (Sydney Symposium of Social Psychology series).
  •      (January 2001). "What's on our mind and how did it get there? The role of knowledge accessibility in social psychological phenomena". In Abraham Tesser; Norbert Schwarz (eds.). Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Intraindividual Processes. Wiley. pp. 236–256. [Coauthored].

"Coping with chaos"

The first journal article retraction occurred a month after Tilburg University announced that it had found evidence of fraud in Stapel's work. In December 2011, the journal Science posted a retraction notice for Stapel's co-authored paper entitled "Coping with chaos: How disordered contexts promote stereotyping and discrimination".[44] The journal expressed initial concern regarding the paper's validity on 1 November.[45][46] The retraction statement in Science says:[47]

Our report "Coping with chaos: How disordered contexts promote stereotyping and discrimination" reported the effects of the physical environment on human stereotyping and discriminatory behavior. On 31 October 2011, the University of Tilburg held a press conference to announce findings of their investigation into possible data fraud on the part of author Stapel. These findings of the university's interim report included fabrication of data in this Science paper. Therefore, we are retracting the paper, with apologies from author Stapel. Coauthor Lindenberg was in no way involved in the generation of the data, and agrees to the retraction of the paper.

Following the retraction, coauthor of the "Chaos" paper, Siegwart Lindenberg, told the journal in an email, "Stapel's doing had caught me as much by surprise as it did anybody else. I never had any suspicion. He was a very trusted man, dean of the faculty, brilliant, successful, no indications for me to be distrustful. In this, I was not the only one. I also had no trouble with the results of the experiments."[45]

Selfishness in carnivores

The research result, obtained by Stapel and co-workers Roos Vonk and Marcel Zeelenberg, that carnivores are more selfish than vegetarians, which was widely publicized in Dutch media,[48] was suspected and later turned out to be based on falsified data.[49] The research result had not yet been published in a scientific journal; only a press bulletin was released.[50]

Other publications

See also

Notes

  1. ^ A longer excerpt from Stapel's response to the joint committees' interim report, in the original Dutch with English translation, follows:[36]

References

Reports

Joint reports of the investigating committees:

Footnotes

  1. ^ a b c d e "Diederik Stapel succeeds Theo Verhallen as Dean of the Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences". Sociale Wetenschappen Newsletter Studenten. Tilburg University. 8 July 2010. Archived from the original on 2 April 2012. Retrieved 5 October 2011 via Tilburg University School of Social and Behavioral Sciences (in English)
  2. ^ "Levelt: Fraud detected in 55 publications (2013)". UniversOnline.nl. 28 November 2012. Retrieved 1 March 2013.
  3. ^ Derksen, Maarten (2021), "A Menagerie of Imposters and Truth-Tellers: Diederik Stapel and the Crisis in Psychology", The Imposter as Social Theory, Bristol University Press, pp. 53–76, doi:10.1332/policypress/9781529213072.003.0003, ISBN 9781529213072
  4. ^ a b Palus, Shannon (8 December 2015). "Diederik Stapel now has 58 retractions". Retraction Watch. Center for Scientific Integrity. Retrieved 22 March 2019.
  5. ^ a b c d e Bhattacharjee, Yudhijith (26 April 2013). "The Mind of a Con Man". The New York Times. First published in the Sunday Magazine by the NYT. Archived from the original on 30 August 2023. Retrieved 28 September 2023.
  6. ^ Abma, Ruud (2012). Changes in publication culture and the Stapel fraud case. Second Joint Meeting of Cheiron and the European Society for the History of the Human Sciences, 18–22 July, 2012. Montreal: European Society for the History of the Human Sciences – via academia.edu. (Conference program; abstracts: p. 50)
  7. ^
  8. ^ Flawed Science 2012, p. 39.
  9. ^ "Career Trajectory Award Recipients". Society of Experimental Social Psychology. Retrieved 1 November 2011.
  10. ^ "Stapel doet vrijwillig afstand van doctorstitel – Binnenland – VK". de Volkskrant. Retrieved 17 November 2011.
  11. ^ "Prof. Diederik Stapel suspended" (Press release). Tilburg University. 7 September 2011. Archived from the original on 2 April 2012. Retrieved 17 September 2011.
  12. ^ Enserink, Martin (7 September 2011). "Dutch university sacks social psychologist over faked data". Science. Archived from the original on 30 September 2011. Retrieved 17 September 2011.
  13. ^ a b c d e f g Interim Levelt Report 2011.
  14. ^ a b c "First committee findings damn fraudulent Tilburg professor". Dutchnews.nl. 27 March 2012.
  15. ^ "Commissie Levelt". Tilburg University (in Dutch). Archived from the original on 24 September 2023.
  16. ^ "Investigations website – Home". Stapel Investigation: Joint Tilburg – Groningen – Amsterdam investigation of the publications by Mr. Stapel. Archived from the original on 31 July 2012.
  17. ^ "Diederik Stapel heeft nooit excuses aangeboden". NU.nl (in Dutch). 28 March 2012.
  18. ^ "Hoe heeft Stapel de wetenschappelijke wereld voor de gek kunnen houden?". de Volkskrant (in Dutch). 28 November 2012. Retrieved 28 November 2012.
  19. ^ Gonzalez, Robbie (2 November 2011). "Psychologist admits to faking dozens of scientific studies". Gizmodo.
  20. ^ a b Stroebe, Wolfgang; Postmes, Tom; Spears, Russell (November 2012). "Scientific Misconduct and the Myth of Self-Correction in Science". Perspectives on Psychological Science. 7 (6): 670–688. doi:10.1177/1745691612460687. ISSN 1745-6916. PMID 26168129.
  21. ^ Flawed Science 2012, pp. 7–8.
  22. ^ "Diederik Stapel: The Lying Dutchman". The Washington Post. 1 November 2011. (Post Opinions). Retrieved 17 January 2012.
  23. ^ Flawed Science 2012, p. 44.
  24. ^ Flawed Science 2012, p. 43.
  25. ^ Interim Levelt Report 2011, p. 9.
  26. ^ Flawed Science 2012, p. 41.
  27. ^ a b Flawed Science 2012.
  28. ^ "Commissie onderzoekt Amsterdamse werk Stapel". Nieuws en Agenda (in Dutch). Universiteit van Amsterdam. 23 September 2011. Archived from the original on 27 November 2011. Retrieved 17 November 2011.
  29. ^ Interim Levelt Report 2011, p. 20.
  30. ^ "UvA onderzoekt mogelijkheid intrekken doctorsgraad Stapel". Nieuws en Agenda (in Dutch). Universiteit van Amsterdam. 31 October 2011. Archived from the original on 4 November 2011. Retrieved 17 November 2011.
  31. ^ Callaway, Ewen (8 December 2011). "Report finds massive fraud at Dutch universities". Nature. 479 (7371): 15. Bibcode:2011Natur.479...15C. doi:10.1038/479015a. PMID 22051650.
  32. ^ Interim Levelt Report 2011, p. 6.
  33. ^ Interim Levelt Report 2011, pp. 6–7.
  34. ^ Frank Huiskamp (28 June 2013). "Diederik Stapel treft schikking met justitie om vervolging te voorkomen". NRC Handelsblad (in Dutch). Retrieved 13 July 2013.
  35. ^ Bhattacharjee, Yudhijith (28 June 2013). "Stapel Gets Community Service for Fabricating Studies". Science Insider. Archived from the original on 6 July 2013. Retrieved 13 July 2013.
  36. ^ a b "Stapel betuigt openlijk 'diepe spijt'". Brabants Dagblad. 31 October 2011. Archived from the original on 29 May 2012.
  37. ^ Borsboom, Denny; Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan (January 2013). "[Book Review] Derailed: The Rise and Fall of Diederik Stapel" (PDF). Observer. Vol. 26, no. 1. Association for Psychological Science. pp. 31, 33.
  38. ^ Jarrett, Christian (9 February 2013). "News: Stapel – final report". BPS Updates. British Psychological Society. Retrieved 2 October 2023.
  39. ^ Stapel, Diederik (15 November 2016). Faking Science: A True Story of Academic Fraud (PDF). Version 1.10. Translated by Brown, Nicholas J. L. p. 215. Translated from the Dutch, in which it appeared with the title, Ontsporing. Retrieved 7 October 2023.
  40. ^ Ivan Nyklíček; Ad Vingerhoets; Marcel Zeelenberg, eds. (2011). Emotion Regulation and Well-Being. New York; Heidelberg: Springer. ISBN 978-1-4419-6952-1.
  41. ^ Flawed Science 2012, pp. 25–27, 76.
  42. ^ K. C. Klauer; A. Voss; C. Stahl, eds. (9 November 2012), Cognitive Methods in Social Psychology (Abridged first ed.), New York: Guilford Press, ISBN 978-1-4625-0913-3. Publisher's note: "The hardcover edition of this book contained a chapter titled 'Priming as Proxy: Understanding the Subjectivity of Social Life' by D. A. Stapel. This chapter has been retracted by joint decision of the publisher and the book's editors."
  43. ^ Flawed Science 2012, pp. 81–82, 95.
  44. ^ Marcus, Adam (1 December 2011), "Science drops other shoe in Stapel case, retracts recent paper on chaos", Retraction Watch, The Center for Scientific Integrity, retrieved 17 January 2012
  45. ^ a b Callaway, Ewen (1 December 2011). "Dutch psychology fraudster issues first retraction". Nature News Blog. Retrieved 17 January 2012.
  46. ^ Alberts, Bruce (11 November 2011). "Editorial Expression of Concern". Science. 334 (6057): 760. Bibcode:2011Sci...334Q.760A. doi:10.1126/science.1216027. PMID 22045832. S2CID 28061110.
  47. ^ Stapel, D. A.; Lindenberg, Siegwart (2 December 2011). "Retraction". Science. 334 (6060): 1202. doi:10.1126/science.334.6060.1202-a. PMID 22144595.
  48. ^
  49. ^ "Meat eaters absolved, professor in the dock". DutchNews.nl. 8 September 2011. Retrieved 17 September 2011; (in English).
  50. ^ Vanheste, Tomas (13 September 2011). "Onder psychologen" [Among psychologists]. Vrij Nederland (in Dutch). Archived from the original on 22 February 2013. Retrieved 31 October 2011.

Further reading