Scientific Definition
Research outcomes tend to favor the interests of the funders.
Plain-English Definition
Research outcomes tend to favor the interests of the funders.
Feynman Explanation
He who pays the piper often picks the tune.
Core Principle
Research outcomes tend to favor the interests of the funders.
Mechanisms
Pending editorial review.
Research outcomes tend to favor the interests of the funders.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Vendor-funded whitepapers are not independent research.
Inputs (Triggers)
Pending editorial review.
Outputs (Behaviors)
Pending editorial review.
Behavioral Signature
He who pays the piper often picks the tune.
Examples
- A sponsored study finds the sponsor's product superior.
- Vendor-funded whitepapers are not independent research.
Pending editorial review.
Famous Experiments
Pending editorial review.
Design Principles
- Insist on independent funding or transparent conflicts of interest.
Measurement Approaches
Pending editorial review.
Evidence
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
The Perverse Incentive Lens™
How this behavior is exploited — and how to redesign around it.
- Insist on independent funding or transparent conflicts of interest.
Pending editorial review.
Pending editorial review.
Interactive Mini Network
Click any neighbor to re-center the graph and follow the threads of connection.
Knowledge Graph Neighbors
Auto-linked to the rest of the Human Behavior Taxonomy by family, domain, dimension, and shared keywords.
The brain evolved to reason adaptively, not always truthfully, to reduce the cost of errors.
We solve problems by adding, even when subtracting would be better.
Researchers favor conclusions aligned with their school, team, or sponsor.
Relying on examples that come to mind easily, not on actual frequency.
Systematic deviations from rationality in judgment.
Treating multiple data points as independent when they came from one source.
Testing hypotheses only by looking for confirming evidence.
Applying higher scrutiny to evidence we disagree with than to evidence we agree with.
Over-weighting one's own perspective when reconstructing events.
Mind latches onto the first plausible explanation and resists alternatives.
Deriving general rules from specific examples; the leap from instance to concept.
Assuming that if one option is true, another must be false, when both can be true.