Research

The Effect of Oral versus Written Moral Reminders on Cheating

Authors:
To read the file of this research, you can request a copy directly from the author.

Abstract

Moral reminders are statements that prime people of ethical standards and can reduce cheating (Mazar et al., 2008). The present study compared two types of moral reminders: verbal and written. Data were collected at two small colleges with honor codes. Participants (n = 48) were placed into one of three conditions: no reminder, verbal reminder, or a signed written reminder. Participants then completed a timed matrix task (Mazar et al., 2008) with an opportunity to cheat to win raffle tickets. Participants self-reported the number of matrices they completed and recycled their answer sheets. To measure cheating, participants’ individual number of reported matrices were subtracted by the group’s average completed matrices. A one-way ANOVA showed no significant differences between groups; however, there was an underreporting of matrices in the written reminder condition. Implications of the use of moral reminders are discussed.

No file available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the file of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Article
Full-text available
Ethical dissonance is triggered by the inconsistency between the aspiration to uphold a moral self-image and the temptation to benefit from unethical behavior. In terms of a temporal distinction anticipated dissonance occurs before people commit a moral-violation. In contrast, experienced dissonance occurs after people realize they have violated their moral code. We review the psychological mechanisms and justifications people use to reduce ethical dissonance in order to benefit from wrongdoing and still feel moral. We then offer harnessing anticipated-dissonance to help people resist temptation, and utilize experienced-dissonance to prompt moral compensation and atonement. We argue that rather than viewing ethical dissonance as a threat to self-image, we should help people see it as the gate-keeper of their morality
Article
Full-text available
This paper presents the advances in the history of cognitive dissonance theory. Cognitive dissonance has been one of the most influential and widely studied phenomena in the history of social psychology. The theory proposes that when people experience psychological discomfort (dissonance), they strive to reduce it through either changing behaviors and cognitions or adding new cognitive elements. The theory has been revised by researchers who emphasize the role of self-concept in the arousal of dissonance. In the late 1970s, the interest in cognitive research faded. However, this opened a new era of mini-theories which originate from cognitive dissonance theory. A good synthesis of mini-theories in future studies will move the dissonance theory further in explaining the conditions under which people strive towards consistency.
Article
Full-text available
This study examined self-reported academic dishonesty at a midsize public university. Students (N = 492) rated the likelihood they would cheat after accepting to abide by each of eight honor code pledges before Internet-based assignments and examinations. The statements were derived from honor pledges used by different universities across the United States and varied in length, formality, and the extent to which the statements included consequences for academic dishonesty. Longer, formal honor codes with consequences were associated with a lower likelihood to cheat. Results showed a significant three-way interaction and suggest how to best design honor codes.
Article
Full-text available
This investigation compared "character building" colleges recognized by the John Templeton Foundation for their character development programs and with honor codes with those that did not have formalized character development programs (traditional colleges) or honor codes. The researcher administered a researcher-designed questionnaire (Academic Honesty Questionnaire) to 695 students representing six colleges and universities randomly selected. Of the six institutions, three colleges and universities of differing population sizes were selected that had incorporated honor code systems The three remaining institutions of differing sizes were considered traditional colleges and did not utilize honor code systems. The level of academic dishonesty was correlated to the presence of an honor code system to determine if possible relationships existed. In addition, the size of the institution and the gender of the student were also considered to determine if differences existed among the construct variables. Significance was found in various subscales for five of the six research questions. Even though no significance was found in the difference in the level of academic dishonesty between institutions with or without honor code systems, a significant difference was found in the perception of student cheating between the two types of institutions. Students from honor code institutions perceived that the amount of academic dishonesty at their institutions was lower. No significant difference was found in the level of student cheating regarding the size of the institution. However, the study found that students from the large-sized universities perceived that they were more likely to get away with cheating than students from the small and medium- sized institutions. Finally, while no significant difference was found in the level of academic dishonesty regarding student gender differences were perceived.
Article
Full-text available
Many written forms required by businesses and governments rely on honest reporting. Proof of honest intent is typically provided through signature at the end of, e.g., tax returns or insurance policy forms. Still, people sometimes cheat to advance their financial self-interests-at great costs to society. We test an easy-to-implement method to discourage dishonesty: signing at the beginning rather than at the end of a self-report, thereby reversing the order of the current practice. Using laboratory and field experiments, we find that signing beforerather than afterthe opportunity to cheat makes ethics salient when they are needed most and significantly reduces dishonesty.
Article
Full-text available
Dishonesty plays a large role in the economy. Causes for (dis)honest behavior seem to be based partially on external rewards, and partially on internal rewards. Here, we investigate how such external and internal rewards work in concert to produce (dis)honesty. We propose and test a theory of self-concept maintenance that allows people to engage to some level in dishonest behavior, thereby benefiting from external benefits of dishonesty, while maintaining their positive view about themselves in terms of being honest individuals. The results show that (1) given the opportunity to engage in beneficial dishonesty, people will engage in such behaviors; (2) the amount of dishonesty is largely insensitive to either the expected external benefits or the costs associated with the deceptive acts; (3) people know about their actions but do not update their self-concepts; (4) causing people to become more aware of their internal standards for honesty decreases their tendency for deception; and (5) increasing the "degrees of freedom" that people have to interpret their actions increases their tendency for deception. We suggest that dishonesty governed by self-concept maintenance is likely to be prevalent in the economy, and understanding it has important implications for designing effective methods to curb dishonesty.Former working paper titles:“(Dis)Honesty: A Combination of Internal and External Rewards” and "Almost Honest: Internal and External Motives for Honesty")
Article
Full-text available
Based on knowledge and methods from cognitive psychology and behavioural economics we introduced 'Gentle reminder.' This procedure calls for public planning of safety norms, and an agreement of all team members to help each other to adhere to this plan. Team members agree to gently remind their coworkers every time they deviate from the safety norm. For the study, we observed the use of gloves during intravenous insertion and blood withdrawal. During the 2 years of observation, safe behaviour increased, if safe behaviour before implementation of the 'gentle reminder' was 55% in one ward; it increased after 2 months to above 80%; 2 months later, it was 83% and 90%; and finally it stabilised on 90%. A similar pattern was documented in all wards. This is one recommended way to overcome unsafe behaviour.
Article
Full-text available
Although people buy counterfeit products to signal positive traits, we show that wearing counterfeit products makes individuals feel less authentic and increases their likelihood of both behaving dishonestly and judging others as unethical. In four experiments, participants wore purportedly fake or authentically branded sunglasses. Those wearing fake sunglasses cheated more across multiple tasks than did participants wearing authentic sunglasses, both when they believed they had a preference for counterfeits (Experiment 1a) and when they were randomly assigned to wear them (Experiment 1b). Experiment 2 shows that the effects of wearing counterfeit sunglasses extend beyond the self, influencing judgments of other people's unethical behavior. Experiment 3 demonstrates that the feelings of inauthenticity that wearing fake products engenders-what we term the counterfeit self-mediate the impact of counterfeits on unethical behavior. Finally, we show that people do not predict the impact of counterfeits on ethicality; thus, the costs of counterfeits are deceptive.
Article
Full-text available
The authors examine student cheating based on implicit and explicit definitions of cheating. Prior to being provided a definition of cheating, students reported whether they had cheated. Students were then provided a definition of cheating and asked to rereport their cheating behaviors. Results indicate that students do not understand what constitutes cheating and are much more likely to report cheating postdefinition. In addition, both pre- and postdefinition cheating behaviors are more prevalent for students with lower GPAs and for those who perceive more cheating by student peers. Alcohol consumption, seeing another student cheat, fraternity/sorority membership, and athletic membership also increase the likelihood of cheating. These findings are consistent with previous studies. On the basis of a sample of students who provided cheating data after a definition of cheating is communicated, the authors find that students who believe that punishment for cheating is relatively severe are less likely to report cheating and that students at institutions with well-publicized honor codes are less likely to admit to cheating compared with students at nonhonor code institutions.
Article
Little is known about the relationship between attention allocation and dishonesty. The goal of the present work is address this issue using eye-tracking methodologies. We develop a novel task in which participants can honestly report seeing a particular card and lose money, or falsely report not seeing the card and not lose money. When participants cheated, they allocated less attention (i.e., shorter fixation durations and fewer fixations) to the card compared to when they behaved honestly. Our results suggest that when dishonesty pays, shifting attention away from undesirable information can serve as a self-deception strategy that allows individuals to serve their self-interests while maintaining a positive self-concept.
Article
Cheaters and noncheaters were assessed on 2 types of motivation (mastery and extrinsic), on perceived social norms regarding cheating, on attitudes about cheating, and on knowledge of institutional policy regarding cheating behavior. All 5 factors were significant predictors of cheating rates. In addition, cheaters were found lower in mastery motivation and higher in extrinsic motivation in courses in which they cheated than in courses in which they did not cheat. Cheaters, in courses in which they cheated, were also lower in mastery motivation and higher in extrinsic motivation than were noncheaters. Finally, cheaters differed from noncheaters on perceived social norms regarding cheating, on their knowledge of institutional policy regarding cheating, and on their attitudes toward cheating. Implications of these findings for institutional interventions are discussed.
Article
The E3 Research Team, lead by the authors, has conducted several major investigations and has surveyed and/or interviewed over 1500 engineering and non-engineering undergraduates at 23 institutions [http://www.engin.umich.edu/research/e3/]. The team is motivated by decades of work showing engineering students are among the most frequent cheaters as well as by studies indicating a correlation between cheating and unethical professional behavior. The team???s research suggests that the explanation for higher rates of cheating among engineering students may lie in curricular or engineering program cultural differences rather than in differences in opportunities to cheat or in the nature of students entering these disciplines. The team has also identified a willingness of students to engage in dishonest behaviors that have significant punitive consequences, a clear relationship between students??? attitude toward a behavior and their propensity to engage in that behavior, and a strong correspondence between cheating in high school and college and engaging in unethical behaviors in the workplace. As such, to promote integrity it is important to identify key pedagogical interventions. This paper will summarize some of the team???s important research findings and will discuss psychological and physical deterrents to cheating and their apparent effectiveness. The paper translates these findings into practical suggestions for educators and professionals interested in promoting integrity in the curriculum and the classroom.
Article
I address three common empirical questions about the connection between religion and morality: (1) Do religious beliefs and practices shape moral behavior? (2) Do all religions universally concern themselves with moral behavior? (3) Is religion necessary for morality? I draw on recent empirical research on religious prosociality to reach several conclusions. First, awareness of supernatural monitoring and other mechanisms found in religions encourage prosociality towards strangers, and in that regard, religions have come to influence moral behavior. Second, religion’s connection with morality is culturally variable; this link is weak or absent in small-scale groups, and solidifies as group size and societal complexity increase over time and across societies. Third, moral sentiments that encourage prosociality evolved independently of religion, and secular institutions can serve social monitoring functions; therefore religion is not necessary for morality. Supernatural monitoring and related cultural practices build social solidarity and extend moral concern to strangers as a result of a cultural evolutionary process.
Article
A content analysis of student survey data from 4,285 respondents in thirty-one institutions found that students at schools with academic honor codes view the issue of academic integrity in a fundamentally different way than students at non-honor code institutions. This difference seems to stem from the presence of an honor code and the influence such codes have on the way students think about academic honesty and dishonesty.
Article
Analysis of student survey data from 6,096 respondents in thirty-one institutions found that academic dishonesty was associated with the existence of an honor code, student perceptions of the certainty of being reported, the severity of penalties, and cheating among peers.
Article
I analyzed 298 open-ended responses of undergraduate students who have been reported for cheating to the question, “What, if anything, would have stopped you from committing your act of academic dishonesty?” These responses included a few major themes: students pled ignorance of what constitutes academic dishonesty and the consequences/seriousness associated with violations; students tended to deflect blame, usually by saying that their professor could have done something differently (neutralization); students did not feel they had enough time, resources, and/or skills to get the desired result without taking responsibility for this lack of time, resources, and/or skills (strain); students felt they did not manage their time well with accepting the blame for the poor time management; and that a bad grade was not an option. These data and results are discussed in relation to the extant literature on the topic.
Article
Across two studies we investigated the relationship between moral relativism versus absolutism and moral behavior. In Experiment 1, we found that participants who read a relativist argument for tolerating female genital mutilation were more likely to cheat to win an incentivized raffle than participants who read an absolutist argument against female genital mutilation, or those in a control condition. In Experiment 2, participants who read a definition of morality phrased in absolutist terms expressed less willingness to engage in petty theft than those who read a definition of morality phrased in relativist terms, or those in a control condition. Experiment 2 also provided evidence that effects were not due to absolutist arguments signaling that fewer behaviors are morally permissible, nor to relativist arguments defending more disagreeable moral positions. Rather, the content of the philosophical positions themselves—the fact that relativism describes morality as subjective and culturally-historically contingent, whereas absolutism describes morality as objective and universal—makes individuals more likely to engage in immoral behaviors when exposed to moral relativism compared to moral absolutism.
Article
In three experiments, we propose and find that individuals cheat more when others can benefit from their cheating and when the number of beneficiaries of wrongdoing increases. Our results indicate that people use moral flexibility to justify their self-interested actions when such actions benefit others in addition to the self. Namely, our findings suggest that when people's dishonesty would benefit others, they are more likely to view dishonesty as morally acceptable and thus feel less guilty about benefiting from cheating. We discuss the implications of these results for collaborations in the social realm.
Article
The present study examined the relationshipbetween college classroom environment, academiccheating, and the neutralization (justification) ofacademic cheating. Two-hundred eighty undergraduatestudents from two liberal arts colleges in the Midwestparticipated in the study. Participants completed theCollege and University Classroom Environment Instrument(CUCEI) and the Survey on Academic Dishonesty (SAD), with instructions to complete thesequestionnaires (anonymously) in a manner that woulddescribe their perceptions, behavior, and attitudes inthe class in which the survey was completed. Three CUCEI scales were identified that discriminatedsignificantly between admitted cheaters and noncheaters.Cheaters described their classes as significantly lesspersonalized, satisfying, and task oriented than did noncheaters. Together, the seven scales ofthe CUCEI explained 4% of the variance in cheatingbehavior. Six CUCEI scales were found to be correlatedsignificantly with a measure of cheating neutralization. Specifically, neutralization increased withdecreases in perceived classroom personalization,involvement, student cohesiveness, satisfaction, taskorientation, and individualization. Together, the seven scales of the CUCEI explained 14% of thevariance in neutralization. It is concluded thatclassroom environment is a significant situationalvariable in academic dishonesty, as both cheatingbehavior and attitudes toward cheating are related toperceptions of classroom environment.
Article
The abstract for this document is available on CSA Illumina.To view the Abstract, click the Abstract button above the document title.
Article
This chapter focuses on theory of cognitive dissonance. The proliferation of research testing and extending dissonance theory results for the most part from the generality and simplicity of the theory. Although it has been applied primarily in social psychological settings, it is not limited to social psychological phenomena such as interpersonal relations or feelings toward a communicator and his communication. Rather, its domain is in the widest of places—the skull of an individual organism. The core notion of the theory is extremely simple: Dissonance is a negative drive state that occurs whenever an individual simultaneously holds two cognitions that are psychologically inconsistent. The very simplicity of the core of the theory is its greatest strength and most serious weakness. Many of the hypotheses that are obvious derivations from the theory are unique to that theory—that is, they could not be derived from any other theory. One of the intriguing aspects of dissonance theory is that it frequently leads to predictions that stand in apparent contradiction to those made by other theoretical approaches, most notably, to a general reward-incentive theory. The implication of the chapter is that dissonant situations are ubiquitous and that man expends a great deal of time and energy attempting to reduce dissonance. It should be obvious that man does many other things as well.
Article
The prevalence of academic dishonesty is increasing in colleges and universities and academic dishonesty is becoming harder to prevent. University honor codes are purported to be successful at reducing levels of academic dishonesty (McCabe & Treviño, 1993). However, relatively little research has been conducted on the effects of a classroom honor code at a university with no institutional honor code. In this study, a classroom honor code was instituted in an upper-level psychology class, at a large public university with no institutional honor code. Students were required to pledge on their weekly quiz, as well as exams, that they "neither gave nor received unauthorized aid". At the end of the semester, students (n = 35) were surveyed on the use of the honor code. The results suggested that the classroom honor code had positive effects on the classroom environment and discouraged academic dishonesty.
Article
Using an experimental design, we examined the interactive effect of situational (explicit presentations of an honor code reminder and of a realistic course warning) and individual (self-perceived cognitive ability) factors on business student cheating. Explicit presentations of both the honor code reminder and the realistic course warning led to significant reductions in academic cheating. In addition, we predicted and found a 3-way interaction indicating that students with the highest self-perceived cognitive ability engaged in the least cheating, especially when both the honor code reminder and the realistic course warning were presented at the outset of the semester. Conversely, when neither the honor code reminder nor the realistic course warning was presented, students low in self-perceived cognitive ability cheated the most. These results suggest that an academic institute's possession of an honor code reminder alone is not sufficient to substantially reduce academic cheating, and that an explicit reminder of the honor code and a realistic course warning together will produce the greatest reduction in cheating. Implications for reducing academic cheating using proactive interventions in the classroom are provided, and future research directions are discussed.
Article
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES WAS STUDIED. DATA WERE COLLECTED BY A QUESTIONNAIRE TO A NATIONWIDE REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE. QUESTIONNAIRES WERE FIRST SENT TO DEANS OF STUDENTS AND STUDENT BODY PRESIDENTS. RESPONSES WERE OBTAINED FROM MORE THAN 600 DEANS AND 500 STUDENT BODY PRESIDENTS. THE DATA PROVIDED IDEAS AND PROBLEMS TO BE STUDIED MORE INTENSIVELY IN THE SECOND STAGE OF THE STUDY. QUESTIONNAIRES WERE THEN SENT TO A SAMPLE OF STUDENTS DRAWN FROM 99 SCHOOLS REPRESENTED BY DEANS AND STUDENT BODY PRESIDENTS OF THE PREVIOUS STAGE. COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRES WERE RECEIVED FROM 5,000 STUDENTS. THE REPORT OF ANALYSES INCLUDED (1) THE PROBLEM OF ACADEMIC DISHONESTY IN CONTEXT, (2) THE SETTING IN WHICH ACADEMIC DISHONESTY OCCURS, (3) MEASURES OF CHEATING, (4) ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE AND CHEATING, (5) VALUE-ORIENTATION AND CHEATING, (6) HIGH SCHOOL EXPERIENCES AND CHEATING, (7) PEER DISAPPROVAL AND CHEATING, (8) COLLEGE CHARACTERISTICS AND THE LEVEL OF ACADEMIC DISHONESTY, AND (9) INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR CONTROLLING ACADEMIC DISHONESTY. A MAJOR FINDING INDICATED THAT MEMBERS OF THE CAMPUS COMMUNITY GROSSLY UNDERESTIMATED THE MAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEM--AT LEAST HALF THE STUDENTS HAD ENGAGED IN SOME FORM OF ACADEMIC DISHONESTY. FURTHER ACTIVITIES WERE SUGGESTED TO EXPLORE THE EFFECTS OF VARIOUS BACKGROUND FACTORS ON A STUDENT'S PERSONAL SENSE OF DISAPPROVAL OF CHEATING. (RS)
Article
The authors investigated the relations among reasons students gave for why they would not cheat in response to a cheating vignette, self-reported cheating, and the extent to which students take responsibility for promoting academic integrity. The authors surveyed 1,086 graduate and undergraduate students. Students who said they would not cheat because of punitive consequences were more likely to report that they cheated in classes and took less responsibility for promoting academic integrity. Students whose reasons related to the value of learning, personal character, and/or it being simply not right reported less cheating and took more responsibility for academic integrity. Academic-integrity responsibility correlated with less cheating. Results are discussed in terms of the effectiveness of punishment and the significance of internalizing integrity standards.
Article
Academic cheating and fraud are becoming more prevalent. The Internet removes barriers and opens access to information and increases the opportunities for academic fraud. The incentives to succeed academically also are increasing as higher education continues to grow in importance. A student's rationalization is the last, critical piece needed to spawn an academic fraud. The aim of this study, undertaken in the USA, is to explore and document the association between students' rationalizations and fraudulent academic decisions and behaviours. We use statistical tests and regression analyses to document significant associations between several rationalizations and academic cheating. We find that rationalization only influences students' assessment of the acceptability of actions when there is some ambiguity about whether or not the action is permitted. Further, we find that students are able to justify unacceptable behaviour if they believe their peers have an unfair advantage, they believe they are not getting an unfair advantage, or they feel the instructor does not care about them. Our primary conclusion is that rationalization plays a vital role in students' academic improprieties. Documenting the problem is a first step toward developing solutions. Instructors can take steps to reduce the association between rationalization and fraud. Explicitly clarifying acceptable and unacceptable resources reduces opportunities for ambiguity and fraud. Building personal relationships and connections with students can also limit certain fraudulent academic activities.
Article
A questionnaire assessing beliefs and behaviors associated with cheating was administered to 365 college students. Circumstances rated most likely to increase cheating were low instructor vigilance, unfair exams, an instructor who does not care about cheating, and dependence of financial support and long-term goals on good grades. Circumstances rated most likely to decrease cheating were high instructor vigilance, fair exams, high punishment for getting caught, essay exams, widely spaced exam seating, and valuable course material. Principal components analyses revealed several factors underlying planned cheating: difficulty/negative consequences of cheating, pressures, instructor personality, social norms, and interest in the course. These factors relate to the determinants of behavior specified by the theory of planned behavior. Self-reports indicated that 83 percent of respondents cheated in college and that the two most common types of cheating were giving (58 percent) and getting (49 percent) exam questions to and from other students before an exam. Acts of helping someone else cheat were more commonly reported than corresponding acts of cheating for oneself. Students with high cheating scores tended to be male rather than female, to have a low goal grade-point average, and to believe that the prevalence of cheating in college is high.
Article
In this study, I surveyed students' evaluative perceptions of instructor behavior and their possible influence on academic dishonesty. Slightly over 20% of 1,369 student respondents admitted to academic dishonesty in at least 1 class during 1 term at college. Students who admitted to acts of academic dishonesty had lower overall evaluations of instructor behavior than students who reported not committing academic dishonesty. Implications for student learning and the enhancement of academic integrity in the classroom are discussed.
Article
The opportunity to profit from dishonesty evokes a motivational conflict between the temptation to cheat for selfish gain and the desire to act in a socially appropriate manner. Honesty may depend on self-control given that self-control is the capacity that enables people to override antisocial selfish responses in favor of socially desirable responses. Two experiments tested the hypothesis that dishonesty would increase when people's self-control resources were depleted by an initial act of self-control. Depleted participants misrepresented their performance for monetary gain to a greater extent than did non-depleted participants (Experiment 1). Perhaps more troubling, depleted participants were more likely than non-depleted participants to expose themselves to the temptation to cheat, thereby aggravating the effects of depletion on cheating (Experiment 2). Results indicate that dishonesty increases when people's capacity to exert self-control is impaired, and that people may be particularly vulnerable to this effect because they do not predict it.
Article
Academic dishonesty is a persistent problem in the American educational system. The present investigation examined how reports of academic cheating related to students' emphasis on their moral identities and their sensitivity to social evaluation. Seventy college students at a large southeastern university completed a battery of surveys. Symptoms of social anxiety were positively correlated with recall of academic cheating. Additionally, relative to students who placed less importance on their moral identities, students who placed more importance on their moral identities recalled significantly fewer instances of cheating. In summary, these findings suggest that students are less likely to cheat on their school work when they place greater emphasis on their moral identity and are less sensitive to social evaluation. Practical interventions to rampant cheating in American schools are discussed.
Article
In a world where encounters with dishonesty are frequent, it is important to know if exposure to other people's unethical behavior can increase or decrease an individual's dishonesty. In Experiment 1, our confederate cheated ostentatiously by finishing a task impossibly quickly and leaving the room with the maximum reward. In line with social-norms theory, participants' level of unethical behavior increased when the confederate was an in-group member, but decreased when the confederate was an out-group member. In Experiment 2, our confederate instead asked a question about cheating, which merely strengthened the saliency of this possibility. This manipulation decreased the level of unethical behavior among the other group members. These results suggest that individuals' unethicality does not depend on the simple calculations of cost-benefit analysis, but rather depends on the social norms implied by the dishonesty of others and also on the saliency of dishonesty.
Article
Dishonest acts are all too prevalent in day-to-day life. In the current review, we examine some possible psychological causes for such dishonesty that go beyond the standard economic considerations of probability and value of external payoffs. We propose a general model of dishonest behavior that includes also internal psychological reward mechanisms for honesty and dishonesty, and we point to the implications of this model in terms of curbing dishonesty.
The honest truth about dishonesty
  • D Ariely
Ariely, D. (2012). The honest truth about dishonesty. New York: HarperCollins.
Moral reminder as a way to improve worker performance on amazon mechanical turk
  • H Hwang
Hwang, H. (2015). Moral reminder as a way to improve worker performance on amazon mechanical turk. An Adjunct to the Proceedings of the Third AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing. San Diego, CA., 8-11.
Undergraduate perceptions of and responses to academic dishonesty: The impact of honor codes
  • B Schwartz
  • H Tatum
  • M Hageman
Schwartz, B., Tatum, H., & Hageman, M. (2013). Undergraduate perceptions of and responses to academic dishonesty: The impact of honor codes. Ethics & Behavior, 23, 463-476. doi:10.1080/10508422.2013.814538