Sandbox: Difference between revisions

From ChanceWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
==Deception and waste of time==
==Sex discrimination lawsuit.==
Report warned Wal-Mart of risks before bias suit<br>
by Steven Greenhouse, ''New York Times'', 3 June 2010


To expand a bit on the previous post, deception in psychology is quite common.  In fact, there exists an entire book devoted to the subject, ''Illusions of Reality: A History of Deception in Social Psychology'', by James H. Korn.  “Stanley Milgram [famous for obedience studies] used the term t''echnical illusions'' because he thought the word ''deception'' had a negative moral bias”--italics in the original.  Most people outside of the psychology realm recognize a convenient euphemism when they see one.
The article asserts that “Six years before the biggest sex discrimination lawsuit in history was filed against Wal-Mart Stores, the company hired a prominent law firm to examine its vulnerability to just such a suit.  The law firm, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, found widespread gender disparities in pay and promotion at Wal-Mart…”


However, the researchers who so annoyed Andrew Gelman are not psychologists but business school assistant professors, who, unfortunately like their psychologist colleagues, have to publish and seek research which can be done inexpensively.  The one thing that sets this research apart is that the duped individuals were faculty members rather than that customary captive, victimized class known as convenient undergraduates.
The article quoted statistics provided by “the plaintiffs’ main expert, Richard Drogin, an emeritus statistics professor at California State University, East Bay, who examined payroll data from 1966 to 2002 that Wal-Mart provided in the case.”  These showed “that among hourly workers in 2001,…,women  earned about $1,1000, or 6 percent, less a year than men, while among salaried employees, women earned $14,500, or 26 per cent, less.”
 
Nevertheless,  
[http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2010/05/63000_worth_of.html Gelman’s initial reaction] was to say “$63,000 worth of abusive research…or just a waste of time.”  [http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2010/05/another_update.html He later modified his views] but perhaps he should not have.  The lay public is all too familiar with the “Lies, damned lies, and statistics” apocryphally attributed to Twain and Disraeli.  Almost as well known is “If you torture the data enough, it will confess to anything.”  Perhaps an even more serious condemnation of the use of statistics is that many studies which utilize statistics to justify their existence are just not worth undertaking despite their titillation value and low p-values.  Intercessory prayer, lucky charms and extrasensory perception come readily to mind.  Unfortunately, just these kinds of investigations resonate with journalists.  


The article went on to state that “A study by Joan Haworth, an expert hired by Wal-Mart, disputed that analysis, finding that more than 90 percent of stores had no statistically significant pay differences between men and women.”
'''Discussion'''
'''Discussion'''
1.  What do you think of Joan Haworth’s reported analysis? Can you propose an analyses that would be more appropriate?


1.  Consider the following University of Michigan research as an [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/328/5979/709 illustration of a deception study].  It is entitled “Washing Away Postdecisional Dissonance.”  The technical illusion in this paper had to do with preference for a product--first, music CDs (40 undergraduates) and then, jam jars (85 undergraduates)-- when in fact the real interest was in hand washing afterwards to determine its effect on regret.  Why did the Wall Street Journal choose to comment on it?  Estimate the cost of doing the study.  If inference to a larger population is desired, what would be the relevant larger population?
2.  If you wanted to try to refute the claim of discrimination suggested by Professor Drogin’s analysis, how would you proceed?
Submitted by Gerry Hahn


2. The hand washing study begins with the statement: “Hand washing removes more than dirt--it also removes the guilt of past misdeeds, weakens the urge to engage in compensatory behavior, and attenuates the impact of disgust on moral judgment.”  Based on the music CDs and the jam jars, it concludes with hand washing “can also cleanse us from traces of past decisions, reducing the need to justify them.”  How would you set up a different deceptive experiment to show whether or not this is true? 


3.  Quite apart from dubious statistics, deception can be a dangerous endeavor as [http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-01-26-senator-office-landrieu_N.htm James O'Keefe] might attest to.  After his initial success with duping ACORN, he overreached when he tried “to tamper with Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu’s office phones” by posing as a telephone worker.  More germane to this discussion, see [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3190/is_6_36/ai_82804057/ the case of Francis Flynn.]  He wrote to 240 New York restaurants “claiming to have contracted food poisoning while dining at their establishments” in order to “to help collect data for a research study he had developed to determine how restaurateurs responded to complaints.”  Eventually, when his deception was found out, 10 of the restaurants “filed a $100 million class-action lawsuit against Flynn and the school [Columbia University], claiming libel and emotional distress.”  That was about ten years ago and in spite of this, he has now been promoted and has moved to another coast.


4.  There is a spectrum: explanation, euphemism, deception, fraud.  For each of the following oft-seen advertisements, justify what category is applicable.
'''Discussion'''
<blockquote>
a. “Absolutely free.  Shipping and handling charges may apply.”<br>
b. “Up to 30% off.”<br>
c. “For your convenience, dinner that night is not included.”<br>
d. “The illustration shown on the cereal box is enlarged to better display the contents.”<br>
e. “Taxes and fees are extra.”<br>
f. “Premium quality.”<br>
g. “No entrance or sign-up fee.”<br>
h. “Limited supply only.”<br>
</blockquote>
 
Submitted by Paul Alper

Revision as of 13:22, 28 June 2010

Sex discrimination lawsuit.

Report warned Wal-Mart of risks before bias suit
by Steven Greenhouse, New York Times, 3 June 2010

The article asserts that “Six years before the biggest sex discrimination lawsuit in history was filed against Wal-Mart Stores, the company hired a prominent law firm to examine its vulnerability to just such a suit. The law firm, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, found widespread gender disparities in pay and promotion at Wal-Mart…”

The article quoted statistics provided by “the plaintiffs’ main expert, Richard Drogin, an emeritus statistics professor at California State University, East Bay, who examined payroll data from 1966 to 2002 that Wal-Mart provided in the case.” These showed “that among hourly workers in 2001,…,women earned about $1,1000, or 6 percent, less a year than men, while among salaried employees, women earned $14,500, or 26 per cent, less.”

The article went on to state that “A study by Joan Haworth, an expert hired by Wal-Mart, disputed that analysis, finding that more than 90 percent of stores had no statistically significant pay differences between men and women.”

Discussion

1. What do you think of Joan Haworth’s reported analysis? Can you propose an analyses that would be more appropriate?

2. If you wanted to try to refute the claim of discrimination suggested by Professor Drogin’s analysis, how would you proceed?

Submitted by Gerry Hahn


Discussion

Retrieved from "https://www.causeweb.org/wiki/chance/index.php?title=Sandbox&oldid=10780"