Question 1: “Evaluate the study based on the six quality attributes of scientific study.

Explain how each attribute has been satisfied or has been violated.”

Testability: The quality of attribute of testability was definitely satisfied. Stapel was able to
come up with several experiments that data could be collected. For example, one of his
experiments was having his students rate their individual attractiveness after they were flashed
an image of either an attractive female face or a very unattractive one. This experiment can
produce data and conduct observations that would be able to prove or disprove his hypothesis.
You could say that this was violated in a way because even though he did these experiments
and collect data, he would eventually fabricate his data to fit whatever his hypothesis was and
to make it more attractive and elegant to his peers.

Replicability: The quality of attribute of replicability was satisfied as well. The experiments that
Stapel tested could be tested by another scientist in the field. A test that could be replicated is
that study where he had individuals fill out a questionnaire while eating M&M from a mug with
the word “kapitalisme”. This experiment could be study by someone else. The results may not
be the exact same since everyone is different however, they could collect very similar data. In a
way you can say that this was violated because Stapel ended up throwing away the
questionnaires so other scientist wouldn’t exact know what that actually data collect proved or
disproved.

Objectivity: The quality of attribute of objectivity is satisfied. Throughout Stapel’s career, he

would partner up with other scientists to create a study. The studies can be replicated without
the need of researcher who first conducted the original one. However, part of the definition of
objectivity in this case can be defined as the results should not depend on who runs the test. In
Stapel’s studies, the results could be different if a different scientist replicated the study since
Stapel didn’t use legitimate data.

Transparency: The quality of attribute of transparency was violated. Some of the studies Stapel
participate in, he wouldn’t necessary consider other assumptions that could change his results
or disprove his hypothesis. When another scientist would ask a question about the study that
would consider a possible effect of changing conditions in the experiment. Stapel would say,
“well I have thought about this, we did another experiment which I haven’t reported here in
which we tried that and it didn’t work.” Stapel was never transparent with his studies.

Falsifiability: The quality of attribute of falsifiability was violated. When looking into all the
studies he tested, no matter what he did, the data he “collect” always looked great. Its clear
that he never too into account that his hypothesis could be disproved since he always didn’t
use reliable data. Instead he would use data that would always prove his hypothesis to be
correct.
Logical Consistency: The quality of attribute of logical consistency was violated. In a way Stapel
was always consistent with his work since it seemed that all his studies that he tested were
accepting his hypothesis. However, he had internal biases that led to these results. He had an
obsession with elegance and order which lead to him concoct “sexy” results that journals would
find attractive. Often times, journal editors would tell him to leave out certain data and to make
it simpler. These internal biases were involved in the consideration in defining what accepts or
does not accept a hypothesis.

Question 2: Which violation has the most significant negative impact on the quality of the
study, and why?

I believe the violation with the most significant negative impact is the logical consistency. If
Stapel didn’t have the internal biases of wanting to be elegant in his writings and have order,
then he would have never produced fabricated data. The journal editors fed into his internal
bias by saying leave out certain data because they preferred simplicity. This would eventually
lead him to only producing and collection data that would fit his hypothesis even if it was
incorrect or not.