Dan Ariely and colleagues have conducted some extremely interesting stu example
ID: 3048311 • Letter: D
Question
Dan Ariely and colleagues have conducted some extremely interesting stu example Mazar, Amir, & Ariely, 2008). To provid packet of problems and told they will be paid $0.50 for each correct answer. however, so that the pa 4) dies on cheating (see, for e an opportunity for cheating, participants are given a The experiment is setup rticipánt doesn't have to turn in their work, they simply have to state how many problems they solved to get paid. This provides a prime opportunity to cheat to earn extra money. In previous tests where the problems are properly scored, so no cheating, Ariely and colleagues found that scores are normally distributed: = 3.3, -10. Here is a list of scores for participants who knew that their work would not be checked. Which of these would you suspect of cheating? Why? a. Participant 1: X = 4 y-3.3 b. Participant 2:X=6 .7 C. Participant 3:X=7 1-33-31 d. Participant 4:X=0 0-33 .3.3 If we let the threshold or hy oksis teshng -lo Le q9% then Ztreshol iing 5) Continuing from the previous question, would it be possible to create a hard and fast rule to identify cheaters based solely on the scores they report? For example, could you determine that anyone with z > 3 must have cheated because, without cheating, this is expected to be a rare level of performance? With this standard, would it be possible to falsely accuse a participant of cheating? If you raise the standard (say z > 4) to reduce the risk of making a false accusation, what other problem does this produce?Explanation / Answer
5. There is no hard and fast rule to identify cheaters , in question 4, we could be 99 % sure that participants 2and 3 are cheaters, but there is 1% chance that they are falsely accused,
If we put X> 3 , we would be 99.74 % sure of the cheaters
But some participants who might have cheated but due to high standards he might get acquitted
If we increase it to X> 4 , we would be almost 100 % sure of the cheaters , that is honest participants wont be accused but there will be high chance that some cheaters might get acquitted due to high standards
As for example the case of problem 4, all will be marked honest and if there is a cheater , he will be acquitted
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.