The encyclopedia · R&D & Science · Operational decision · 2014–2015
The UCLA graduate student who faked a landmark study — and changed the gay marriage debate
Michael LaCour fabricated data in a Science study claiming gay canvassers changed minds on marriage. The study had already influenced real policy.
University of California, Los Angeles · Columbia University · 2015-05-28
What happened
Michael LaCour was a PhD candidate in political science at UCLA. In December 2014, he published a study in Science titled 'When Contact Changes Minds' with co-author Donald Green of Columbia University. The study claimed that brief conversations with gay canvassers could durably change people's views on same-sex marriage, and that the effect spread within households. The findings were ranked in the top 5% of all research output by Altmetrics and made international headlines.
In May 2015, three graduate students — David Broockman, Joshua Kalla, and Peter Aronow — published a critique showing that the data had been completely fabricated. The survey company LaCour claimed to have used denied any involvement. No organization could be found that provided the funding required. The baseline data appeared to be copied from an earlier study. Later data appeared to be simulated by adding random noise. LaCour tried to retroactively claim the study had been pre-registered using falsified documents.
Science retracted the paper on May 28, 2015. Carnegie Corporation rescinded Green's $200,000 Andrew Carnegie Fellowship. Princeton University rescinded an assistant professorship it had offered to LaCour. LaCour admitted to 'misrepresenting survey incentives and funding' but denied intentionally falsifying data. The case became a landmark in social science research fraud and led to widespread criticism of how prestigious journals handle high-impact studies.
Why it happened
- Science fast-tracked the study because the result was politically desirable — the finding that conversations could change minds on gay marriage was what editors and reviewers wanted to believe.
- The peer review process never asked to see the raw data — the prestige of the journal and the political importance of the finding overrode standard verification procedures.
- LaCour's co-author Donald Green admitted he accepted the data 'on faith' — even though he had certified on his authorship form that he examined the raw data.
The lesson
A study that confirms what everyone wants to believe will be published faster and scrutinized less — the system that trusts a result because it is convenient is a system waiting to be exploited.
Aftermath
The LaCour case became the most famous social science fraud scandal of the 2010s. It exposed how high-impact journals like Science prioritize dramatic findings over methodological rigor. The case also demonstrated that graduate students, not peer review, are often the ones who catch fraud. Broockman and Kalla later conducted a real version of the study, finding that conversations did reduce prejudice — but that the identity of the canvasser did not matter, contradicting LaCour's central claim.
Sources
spotted an error? The club wants to know.
More like this
NASA's arsenic life press conference was a PR disaster — the science never held up
Physicist faked room-temp superconductivity — 5 retractions, thesis 21% plagiarized
Stanford president resigned over manipulated images — 5 papers retracted or corrected
Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →

Comments · 0
Sign in to join the comments.