The question here it would seem should focus more on the manipulation of data rather than that of adding participants to create change in results... (Or at least that's what I think)
The reason I have said this is due to the belief that in research another psychologist could easily find a larger sample and replicate a study, which may create a change in results BUT appears to still in keep with 'good' science. 'Good' science for the sake of this blog being honest untampered with research, or research that hasn't been tampered with to create a desired effect.
Manipulating methodology is all well and good when it comes to Psychology because that is what Psychology is about. Establishing causal relationships. If we don't test, we don't know. However to manipulate data is in my opinion, 'bad' science.
(Here is normally where a reference would go... There are no good ones)
To continue, manipulation of data seems to give off a sense of laziness on the researchers part. Understandably there may be problems, regarding factors such as funding to carry on research, yet it doesn't warrant manipulating data to create an effect that wasn't visible in the first place.
Does anyone agree/disagree/have a decent piece of research to back up or refute what I've said?
Comments appreciated.
