University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A dissonance-based intervention targeting cheating behavior in a university setting

(USC Thesis Other)

A dissonance-based intervention targeting cheating behavior in a university setting

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 1"

Running Head: DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR

A Dissonance-Based Intervention Targeting Cheating Behavior in a University Setting
Gabrielle Lewine, B.A.
University of Southern California

Faculty Advisor: Stan Huey, Jr., Ph.D.
(CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY)
Masters Thesis
August 2015
!

DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 2"
Table of Contents
Abstract............................................................................................................................................4
Introduction......................................................................................................................................5
Academic Dishonesty..........................................................................................................5
Dissonance-Based Interventions..........................................................................................8
Potential Moderators of the Efficacy of Hypocrisy Induction...........................................15
Current Study Aims, Context and Hypotheses..................................................................16
Method...........................................................................................................................................18
Sample................................................................................................................................18
Procedural Overview.........................................................................................................18
Measures............................................................................................................................20
Academic Dishonesty Questionnaire (ADQ) ........................................................20
Inventory of Callous-Unemotional traits (ICU) ....................................................21
Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) .................................................................21
Brief Self-Control Scale (BSCS) ..........................................................................21
Manipulation......................................................................................................................22
Outcomes...........................................................................................................................24
Matrix task.............................................................................................................24
Die task..................................................................................................................25
Debriefing..........................................................................................................................27
Results............................................................................................................................................28
Pre-Intervention Characteristics.........................................................................................28
Analyses.............................................................................................................................28
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 3"
Matrix Task........................................................................................................................29
Main effects...........................................................................................................29
Moderation.............................................................................................................30
Die Task.............................................................................................................................31
Main effects...........................................................................................................31
Moderation.............................................................................................................31
Categorical moderators..............................................................................31
Continuous moderators..............................................................................32
Discussion......................................................................................................................................33
Intervention Effects............................................................................................................34
Explaining Moderation Effects..........................................................................................37
Year in school........................................................................................................37
Ethnicity.................................................................................................................39
Academic dishonesty.............................................................................................40
Limitations.........................................................................................................................41
Matrix task.............................................................................................................41
Assessing dissonance.............................................................................................43
Statistical limitations..............................................................................................44
Future Directions...............................................................................................................44
References......................................................................................................................................46
Tables.............................................................................................................................................53
Figure Captions..............................................................................................................................64
Appendix A....................................................................................................................................69
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 4"
Abstract
The efficacy of hypocrisy induction interventions has been supported for a promising array of
target behaviors, ranging from condom use (Stone, Aronson, Crain, Winslow, & Fried, 1994) to
water conservation (Dickerson, Thibodeau, Aronson, & Miller, 1992). This study represents two
extensions of the literature on this type of dissonance intervention. First, it examined the efficacy
of dissonance interventions targeting cheating behavior. Second, it tested the prototypical two-
part dissonance intervention against a novel one-part dissonance intervention, which represents a
potential methodological advance. Undergraduates at the University of Southern California were
randomly assigned to either a one-part hypocrisy induction condition, a two-part hypocrisy
induction condition, or a control condition, each of which involved writing a letter to a local high
school student. Participants then took part in two laboratory exercises that contained built-in
opportunities to cheat: a die task (Ariely, Garcia-Rada, Hornuf, & Mann, 2014) and a matrix task
(Gino & Ariely, 2012). Overall, letter condition had a marginal effect on cheating outcomes for
the die task: surprisingly, participants in the one-part dissonance condition showed greater
cheating than those in the two-part dissonance and control conditions. Significant and marginal
moderation effects were found as well; the pattern of high cheating in the one-part dissonance
condition was amplified in upperclassmen on the matrix task, and in Asian participants and
participants with high levels of pre-intervention academic dishonesty on the die task. Possible
explanations for the counterintuitive effects of the one-part dissonance condition, as well as
implications of the moderator findings, are discussed.

DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 5"
A Dissonance-Based Intervention Targeting Cheating Behavior in a University Setting
Introduction

Academic Dishonesty
Genereux and McLeod (1995) defined academic dishonesty broadly as “the attempt by
students to obtain a desired outcome through prohibited or unauthorized means” (p. 687). It
follows that academic dishonesty can manifest in multitudinous ways including plagiarism,
copying exam answers from or providing exam answers to classmates, using cheat sheets on
exams, gaining illicit access to exam information before the test takes place, etc. (Fass, 1986;
Satterlee, 2002). The harmful consequences of academic dishonesty occur on the level of the
individual, the broader level of the classroom of peers, and even more broadly at the institutional
level (see Fass, 1986 for a detailed explication). Most obviously, if the individual engages in
academic dishonesty on an assignment or exam, he or she has failed to master the required skill
or material, and so his or her learning outcome is necessarily impoverished. Furthermore, there is
evidence that patterns of academic dishonesty are long-standing within individuals: cheating in
high school is a strong predictor of cheating in college (Harding, Mayhew, Finelli, & Carpenter,
2007), as well as in graduate school and onward (Fass, 1986).
Moving from the individual to the class, cheating behavior is unfair to non-cheaters in the
class, insofar as they are not afforded the same advantage as the cheating students (e.g., cheat
sheet, old exams). Prominent researchers of academic dishonesty have suggested that otherwise
honest students observe rampant cheating at the classroom level and convince themselves that
they too must cheat to level the playing field (McCabe, Treviño, & Butterfield, 2001). Evidently,
the unjust outcome at the classroom level only occurs if the cheating student ‘gets away with it’.
It might be tempting to believe that in university settings, where academic integrity is so
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 6"
fundamental to the pedagogy, justice would be served whenever possible in cases where students
are suspected of academic dishonesty. However, a substantial amount of research has
demonstrated that this is far from the case; the rates at which faculty actually report students
caught cheating to the institution has generally ranged from 15-21% across studies (e.g., Singhal,
1982, Wright & Kelly, 1974). The highest reporting rate thus far came from a survey of faculty
members at a large public university, where a third of respondents who had observed cheating in
their courses reported the incident to the university (Jendrek, 1989). Only two-thirds of the
respondents imposed any penalty on the students; in most cases, this consisted of a discussion
with the student and a point deduction on the quiz or exam in question. These dismal reporting
rates are complemented by the proportion of faculty members who ignore suspected and
confirmed cheating incidents altogether: between 20-40% of faculty members admit to turning a
blind eye to student cheating on at least one occasion (Coren, 2011; Graham, Monday, O’Brien,
& Steffen, 1994). This pervasive permissiveness on the part of the faculty translates into very
few cheaters facing consequences for their actions: 95% of high-achieving high school students
who endorsed cheating in one study said they were never caught (Bushweller, 1999). Finally, at
the organizational level, cheating stands in opposition to academic integrity, a principle which
lies at the core of university research institutions.
Large-scale studies in institutions of higher education have found remarkably consistent
and high rates of cheating: the earliest found a “serious cheating” rate of 75% (defined as
copying from a neighbor on an exam, using crib notes on an exam, helping another cheat on an
exam, plagiarism, falsification of a bibliography, turning in work written by someone else, or
copying sentences without footnoting the source; Bowers, 1964). A replication 30 years later
demonstrated a modest increase in serious cheating, to 82% (McCabe & Treviño, 1997). A later
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 7"
comprehensive review summarizing 107 studies of cheating among college students found a
slightly lower mean cheating rate of 70.4% (Whitley, 1998). Researchers have found that rates of
serious test cheating, in particular, have increased dramatically: from 39% in 1963 to 64% in
1993 (McCabe et al., 2001). The lack of a corresponding increase in cheating rates on written
work may be due to increased leniency in students’ definition of what constitutes plagiarism,
rather than reflecting true stability of these academically dishonest behaviors (McCabe et al.,
2001). Furthermore, although recent large-scale investigations of cheating prevalence are
lacking, cheating rates may still be on the rise, as some have posited that the ready accessibility
of information through technology (e.g., smartphones) has exacerbated rates of academic
dishonesty by providing more opportunity for cheating (Satterlee, 2002). All in all, these
alarming prevalence rates, along with the far-reaching and insidious consequences of academic
dishonesty enumerated earlier, suggest that this is a problem area ripe for intervention.
Existing interventions to address cheating behavior can be classified into two categories:
those that target the individual, and those that target the institution. Examples of the former have
largely proven ineffective. For instance, an intervention targeting cheating behavior in 5
th
and 6
th

grade students through instruction in moral reasoning and efficacy found no treatment effects
(Grier & Firestone, 1998). Examples of the latter, including the institution of academic honor
codes (May & Loyd, 1993; McCabe et al., 2002), washing desks between class periods
(Bushweller, 1999), and avoiding the use of multiple choice questions (McCabe, Treviño, &
Butterfield, 1999) have had some limited success. Academic honor codes, in particular, have
garnered some attention due to their apparent impact on cheating: in several studies in the early
1990s, schools with honor codes in place had consistently lower rates of serious cheating than
those without honor codes (44-54% at honor code schools v. 71% at non-honor-code schools;
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 8"
McCabe et al., 2001). However, McCabe and colleagues qualify this finding by stating that an
effective honor code is more than mere “window dressing”, and must be reinforced by and
embedded within an institutional culture where academic integrity is valued. With cheating rates
around 50%, academic honor codes arguably represent the best intervention for cheating that the
literature has to offer. Some researchers have gone so far as to say “in spite of all the research
and media attention devoted to the problem of cheating within the past 10 to 15 years, little if
any significant progress appears to have been made in abating this troublesome issue” (Roig &
Marks, 2006, p.170). Altogether, cheating behavior has proven very resistant to intervention,
despite the wide variety of approaches attempted in this research literature. There has been only
one study to date examining the efficacy of a dissonance-based intervention to reduce cheating
(Vinski & Tryon, 2009), which will be discussed below after a brief introduction to cognitive
dissonance and its history as an intervention technique.
Dissonance-Based Interventions
The theory of cognitive dissonance was first introduced by the social psychologist Leon
Festinger (1957) over 60 years ago, and is now one of the most widely researched concepts in
social psychology. In its simplest form, cognitive dissonance theory states that when an
individual has two cognitions that are inconsistent with one another, he or she will feel agitated
and motivated to resolve the inconsistency by changing either one or both of them. Cognitions
include beliefs, thoughts, expectations, and mental representations of experience or behavior.
The discomfort evoked by cognitive dissonance is dealt with in a multitude of nuanced ways, the
scope of which is beyond this brief summary. However, the three most essential ways to reduce
dissonance are to (1) change one or both of the cognitions, (2) add consonant thoughts, or
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 9"
rationalizations, into the mental equation, and (3) decrease the personal importance of the
cognition.
Consider the following mundane example, provided in the introduction to Cooper’s
(2007) seminal book on cognitive dissonance theory. Imagine you are hosting a dinner party for
a group of friends. Your preparations are elaborate, including extensive cleaning of the house,
buying high quality groceries, and cooking a labor-intensive meal, and your expectations of how
the evening will go are bright. Unfortunately, several of your guests are late, the conversation is
forced, and the food is overcooked. Your expectation of the event (“This dinner party will be
memorable and enjoyable for everyone.”) and its actual occurrence (“Guests were late,
conversation didn’t flow, and the meal wasn’t tasty.”) are characterized by inconsistency, and
you feel agitated and uncomfortable. According to cognitive dissonance theory, you resolve this
discomfort by rationalizing the outcome in order to make it more consistent with your belief:
perhaps the guests preferred the charred flavor of the burnt food, and the sparse table
conversation was because they were busy enjoying the meal. Another way to resolve the
dissonance would be to generate cognitions that are consonant with your experience: “Dinner
parties never live up to their expectations.” Additionally, you could decrease the personal
importance that the inconsistent cognition holds: “I don’t really care much what those friends
think.” or “It was just a dinner party- who cares?” Although this may seem like trivial subject
matter, it is important to ground the abstract principle in a concrete example to illustrate the
fundamentality of the theory: cognitive dissonance governs our decisions and appraisals, both
mundane and significant. Humans have an inherent discomfort for inconsistency, and we are
highly motivated to resolve inconsistency and reduce this discomfort in any way we can.
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 10"
The potential of dissonance as a mechanism for changing attitudes and behavior follows
directly from this explication. Indeed, since its introduction into social psychology, the efficacy
of dissonance as an intervention technique has been explored for a variety of target beliefs and
behaviors. Earlier experimental work on cognitive dissonance primarily used a forced
compliance paradigm, in which participants “freely” engage in a behavior they would not
normally engage in, such as advocate a position they do not agree with (e.g., Cohen, 1962) or
expend substantial effort toward a goal about which they feel ambivalent (e.g., Aronson & Mills,
1959). However, the outcomes in these studies primarily reflect attitude change; that is,
participants reduce their dissonance by changing their attitudes rather than their behaviors. More
recently, an experimental paradigm relying on hypocrisy induction was introduced which has
shown promising efficacy for reducing dissonance by means of behavior change rather than
behavior justification through attitudinal change (Fried & Aronson, 1995; Stone & Fernandez,
2008). The hypocrisy induction paradigm typically employs a two-by-two design manipulating
whether participants 1) advocate a position that leads to positive consequences, i.e., advocacy
component, 2) reflect on their own past failures to live up to the advocated position, i.e.,
reflection component, or both, i.e., hypocrisy induction. Crucial to the first element is
commitment: several investigators have demonstrated that commitment to the inconsistent
cognition is necessary for dissonance induction, by such means as being publicly identified with
the statements (Carlsmith, Collins, & Helmreich, 1966) or being unable to later retract them
(Davis & Jones, 1960). Dissonance is aroused in the hypocrisy condition, in which participants
undergo both of these manipulations (committed advocacy of a position and reflection on past
failures to live up to this position); in turn, dissonance is reduced by changing behavior to be
more in line with the advocated position.
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 11"
For example, a study targeting energy conservation in Western Australia (Kantola, Syme,
& Campbell, 1984) assigned participants to one of four experimental conditions: in the tips
group, individuals received tips on how to conserve electricity; in the feedback group,
individuals were informed that they were high consumers of electricity and received electricity-
saving tips; in the hypocrisy condition, individuals received information that they were high
consumers of electricity, a reminder that they had previously indicated on a survey that it was
their duty to conserve electricity, and tips on how to conserve electricity; and the control group
received none of these. The third condition evoked dissonance in participants because their belief
(i.e., that it was their duty to conserve electricity), which they committed to (i.e., by indicating on
a survey that this was their duty) was inconsistent with their behavior (i.e., consuming high
amounts of electricity). The hypocrisy group conserved significantly more electricity over a two-
week follow-up period than all other groups.
A field experiment in a campus recreation facility targeting water conservation
(Dickerson, Thibodeau, Aronson, & Miller, 1992) similarly assigned individuals to one of four
experimental conditions: in the mindfulness condition, individuals were reminded that they had
sometimes wasted water in their showers in the past; in the public commitment condition,
individuals were asked to sign a flyer indicating a public commitment to conserve water; in the
hypocrisy condition, individuals were reminded that they had sometimes wasted water in the
past, then asked to make a public commitment to conserving water by signing a flyer; and in the
control condition, individuals did not undergo either of these elements. The third condition
elicited dissonance in participants because their belief (i.e., in the importance of water
conservation), which they committed to (i.e., by signing the flyer to conserve water), was
inconsistent with their past behavior (i.e., wasting water). Immediately after the intervention,
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 12"
individuals in the hypocrisy condition took significantly shorter showers than those in the control
condition, whereas individuals in the mindfulness and public commitment conditions did not
differ significantly from the control group on subsequent shower length.
Another study employed this same two-by-two design to examine the effects of hypocrisy
induction on condom use (Stone, Aronson, Crain, Winslow, & Fried, 1994). In the mindful only
condition, subjects were asked to come up with reasons in the past why they had failed to use
condoms; in the commitment only condition, subjects were videotaped giving a speech
advocating for condom use that they were told would be shown to high schoolers as part of an
AIDS prevention program; in the hypocrisy (mindful and committed) condition, subjects were
filmed giving a speech advocating for condom use to be shown to high schoolers, then asked to
come up with reasons why they hadn’t used condoms in the past; and in the control condition,
subjects received no inquiry into their past condom use and were asked to write a speech about
condom use, but did not have to present it and were not videotaped. The third condition evoked
dissonance in the subjects because their belief (i.e., in the importance of condom use for AIDS
prevention), which they committed to (i.e., by giving a speech for high schoolers advocating
condom use), was inconsistent with their past behavior (i.e., not using condoms). In the
hypocrisy condition, a greater proportion of subjects bought condoms at the conclusion of the
experiment than in any of the other conditions. Additionally, the number of condoms purchased
by those individuals in the hypocrisy condition was higher than the number purchased by those
in any of the other conditions.
These three studies were chosen as exemplars of the broad literature on hypocrisy
induction because they have in common a 2x2 dismantling design, in which the hypocrisy
condition involves the combination of a reflection element, which reminds individuals of their
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 13"
past transgressions, and an advocacy element, in which they advocate for a principle that is
inconsistent with this past behavior. The three other conditions are reflection alone, advocacy
alone, and a control group that undergoes neither. This dismantling design is optimal for making
causal inferences, as it permits the investigation of whether each element on its own is
responsible for any change in the target behavior, as well as whether the combination of the two
yields more than an additive effect. However, the nature of the dismantling design also means
that the two elements of the hypocrisy condition are presented via two separate means (e.g.,
advocacy via videotaped speech, reflection via reason brainstorming in Stone et al., 1994).
Therefore, the classic hypocrisy induction design does not allow the researcher to determine
whether the two elements can be combined within a single activity. There are several potential
advantages that would follow from administering the hypocrisy induction condition in one part
rather than two. First, and most obviously, this methodological adjustment would be more cost-
effective, and would make the intervention more “low-maintenance”. Second, combining the two
elements into one would likely make the intervention more efficient, which would facilitate its
dissemination. Finally, presenting the hypocrisy condition as a single activity would allow the
participant more flexibility as far as when and how to engage with each of the elements in a way
that intuitively makes sense to them. Research has demonstrated that the element of free choice
is crucial to successfully eliciting dissonance – if the participant has sufficient external pressure
to make a particular choice, no cognitive dissonance is elicited (e.g., Aronson & Carlsmith,
1963). However, if the participant “freely” engages in the activity, the stage is set for dissonance,
as they must justify to themselves why they partook in it. Cognitive dissonance research
paradigms regularly assign participants to “high-choice” and “low-choice” conditions and find
that those in the high-choice condition experience higher levels of dissonance (e.g., Harmon-
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 14"
Jones, Brehm, Greenberg, Simon & Nelson, 1996). Similarly, giving the participant the freedom
to structure their letter as they wish may elicit dissonance more successfully than providing firm
guidelines when writing the letter.
In addition to the examples provided above, the hypocrisy induction paradigm has proven
effective at motivating change in a wide range of target behaviors (see Cooper, 2007, p.174-177;
or Stone & Fernandez, 2008 for a review; see e.g., Aronson, Fried, & Stone, 1991; Hing, Li, &
Zanna, 2002; Morrongiello & Mark, 2008 for more specific examples). Broader cognitive
dissonance-based interventions have also proven successful in targeting problems as diverse as
attitudes toward older workers (Gringart, Helmes, & Speelman, 2008), eating disorders (Stice,
Shaw, Becker, & Rohde, 2008), dating aggression (Schumacher & Slep, 2004), and weight loss
(Axsom & Cooper, 1985). Furthermore, the commonality of cognitive dissonance theory across
evidence-based therapeutic interventions for anxiety and depression such as behavior therapy,
cognitive therapy, and interpersonal therapy has led researchers to propose that cognitive
dissonance induction and reduction be labeled a principle of change partially responsible for the
efficacy of these treatments (Tryon & Misurell, 2008). It is clear that this mechanism has shown
a substantial success rate across a diverse array of target behaviors, which makes it a promising
candidate for an intervention targeting the insidious problem of academic dishonesty.
Vinski and Tryon (2009) investigated a cognitive dissonance intervention targeting
cheating behavior and found that the intervention was ineffective at reducing cheating outcomes.
However, this finding should be interpreted with caution given the methodological limitations of
the study. First, the experimental design and procedure were entirely transparent, i.e., no
deception was used. Second, the groups were not randomly assigned, which weakens the study’s
potential for causal inferences. Third, the outcome measures were exclusively self-reported, and
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 15"
included a measure, developed by the first author for the study, that had not been
psychometrically validated. Fourth, the focus group format and the content of the dissonance
intervention may have limited its ability to successfully induce dissonance in its participants.
Finally, the first author of the paper was also an administrator at the school, the recruiter of
participants, the developer of the Academic Honesty Scale used as an outcome measure, and the
mediator of the focus groups, which raises questions about how demand characteristics might
have influenced the results obtained.
Potential Moderators of the Efficacy of Hypocrisy Induction
The study proposed herein represents one of the first forays of dissonance interventions
into the realm of antisocial behavior. If hypocrisy induction indeed proves effective at decreasing
cheating, this finding could encourage research on dissonance interventions targeting any
number of other antisocial behaviors (e.g., bullying in school-age children, re-offending in
recidivist prisoners). Therefore, one important goal in extending the existing dissonance
literature to antisocial behavior is to examine whether antisocial traits moderate the efficacy of
hypocrisy induction.
A personality variable that seems well-suited to this goal is one measured by the
Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits (ICU; Frick, 2004). Callous-unemotional traits
characterize a unique and more classically “sociopathic” aspect of the antisocial realm, as they
focus on lack of empathy and diminished emotional expression. This variable is trait-like, stable
across childhood and adolescence, and predicts relevant outcomes including antisocial behavior,
aggressive behavior, and poor treatment response (Kimonis et al., 2008). The ICU not only taps a
unique aspect of antisociality, but also points to alternative causal pathways – for example,
genetic influences on antisocial behavior appear to be higher in those high on CU traits
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 16"
compared to low-CU youth (Viding, Blair, Moffitt & Plomin, 2005). Understanding how
individuals’ level of CU traits affects their response to a dissonance-based intervention is an
important goal for directing future dissonance research. For example, if the hypocrisy induction
successfully reduces cheating outcomes only in individuals low on CU traits, then the future of
dissonance interventions aimed at more severely antisocial populations is less promising than if
the intervention works equally across CU trait levels. It follows that exploring CU traits as a
moderator of the efficacy of a dissonance intervention will be useful in order to direct continuing
dissonance research toward target populations that are most likely to benefit from it.
Several additional personality variables will be assessed toward the goal of targeting
future dissonance research to those who respond best to it. The widely researched Big Five
personality variables (i.e., Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability,
Openness to Experience) will be assessed using the Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI), a
brief measure designed to provide data on where individuals fall on the Five-Factor Model
(FFM) of personality when time is limited or personality is not the primary variable of interest
(Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, Jr., 2003). Finally, research on trait-level self-control has found it
predictive of many relevant outcomes, including GPA and general adjustment. Therefore,
individual differences in self-control will be assessed using a brief measure adapted from
Tangney, Baumeister, and Boone (2004). These personality variables, as well as demographic
variables of potential theoretical relevance to cheating behavior, will be examined as potential
moderators of intervention efficacy.
Current Study Aims, Context and Hypotheses
This study aims to extend the burgeoning literature on the efficacy of dissonance
interventions into the domain of antisocial rule-breaking behavior, specifically cheating
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 17"
behavior. This area is ripe for study considering the demonstrated efficacy of dissonance
interventions in the existing literature for a broad array of target problems, the far-reaching
consequences of rampant cheating at individual, institutional, and societal levels, and the
conclusion by researchers such as Roig and Marks (2006) that “little if any significant progress”
has been made in reducing cheating behavior. This study also proposes to investigate a potential
methodological advancement, i.e., administering hypocrisy induction in a single activity, rather
than separating it into advocacy and reflection elements each achieved by different means.
Given the proven relevance of context characteristics in determining the prevalence of
academic dishonesty, background information on the institution at hand is indicated. The
University of Southern California is a large, private research university located in Los Angeles,
CA. A total of 19,000 undergraduate students attended the university in the 2014-15 academic
year, as well as 23,000 graduate students. The student population is diverse and boasts a
particularly impressive proportion of international students (23%). Importantly, USC does have
an academic honor code demanding academic integrity from its students and listing appropriate
sanctions should the code be violated.
The primary hypothesis is that participants in the one-part dissonance and two-part
dissonance conditions will show lower rates of cheating on several laboratory tasks immediately
following the intervention than participants in the control condition. The secondary hypothesis is
that the one-part dissonance intervention will lead to equally lower cheating rates on the
laboratory tasks as the two-part dissonance intervention. The tertiary hypothesis is that the
relationship between experimental condition and immediate cheating outcomes will be
moderated by participant scores on the ICU. Exploratory moderation analyses will also be
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 18"
undertaken for the Big Five personality traits, self-control, and demographic variables of
potential theoretical relevance such as gender, ethnicity, and year in school.
Method
Sample
All participants were undergraduate students at the University of Southern California, and
were recruited using the Psychology Subject Pool. Three hundred eighty-one participants (71.4%
female) underwent the screening procedure to determine their eligibility for the core procedures.
The highest proportion were Asian (41.2%), followed by White (30.7%), and the remainder of
the participants were relatively evenly split between African-American (5.0%), Latino (8.9%),
Other (5.0%), and Multi-Racial (9.2%). Of the 381 participants screened, 278 (73.0%) were
found eligible, meaning they endorsed at least one item on the Academic Dishonesty
Questionnaire (see Appendix A and description in Measures section). Of the 278 eligible
participants, 85 (69.4% female) completed the core study procedures. The highest proportion
were Asian (36.5%), followed by White (31.8%), and the remainder were relatively evenly split
between African-American (8.2%), Latino (10.6%), Other (3.5%), and Multi-Racial (9.4%).
Procedural Overview
First, all participants came into the lab for the screening procedure. After informed
consent, each participant completed a demographics questionnaire, the Academic Dishonesty
Questionnaire (ADQ), the Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits (ICU), the Ten-Item
Personality Inventory (TIPI), and a brief measure of self-control. Next, their responses to the
ADQ were examined to determine if they had endorsed any of the 31 cheating behaviors
assessed. Those who reported engaging in ≥1 of the academically dishonest behaviors listed were
considered eligible, and were contacted via email to sign up for the core procedures.
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 19"
The core study proceeded as follows. During the consent process, participants were told
that they would take part in two studies: the first examining the relationship between number
sense and personality traits, and the second examining the potential impact of advice from a
college student on a high school senior. After providing informed consent, participants were
randomized to one of three conditions. In the first condition (one-part dissonance), participants
were given 30 minutes to write a letter to a local high school student. They were instructed to
include two elements: an advocacy element in which they advocated for the importance of
academic integrity, and a reflection element in which they reflected on a personal instance of
academic dishonesty. In the second condition (two-part dissonance), participants were given 15
minutes to write the first part of a letter to a local high school student, in which they advocated
for academic integrity. Then, they were given 15 minutes to write the second part of the letter, in
which they reflected on past academic dishonesty. In the third condition (control), participants
were given 30 minutes to write a letter to a local high school student in which they listed the
schedule of a typical day for them at USC. After the letter-writing exercise, all participants
completed two incentivized number processing activities with built-in opportunities to cheat.
Finally, they were paid and debriefed about the true experimental purpose.
The order of the advocacy and reflection elements in the classic two-part hypocrisy
induction has been inconsistent in the existing literature. Some studies (e.g., Aronson et al.,
1991; Dickerson et al., 1992; Morrongiello & Mark, 2008) have had participants first reflect on
their past failures to live up to the principle in question, then advocate for that principle. Others
(e.g., Fried & Aronson, 1995; Hing et al., 2002; Kantola et al., 1984; Stone et al., 1994) have
had participants first advocate for a principle, then reflect on their past failures to live up to that
principle. However, prominent theorists in dissonance research have been more consistent with
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 20"
the second order. Cooper (2007, p.175) cites current advocacy, followed by a reminder of prior
discrepant behavior, as the necessary conditions to elicit dissonance. Stone and Fernandez (2008)
similarly state that public advocacy, followed by mindfulness of past failures, comprise the ideal
hypocrisy-inducing paradigm. Therefore, this order, i.e., advocacy preceding reflection, was
employed in the two-part dissonance condition.
Measures
Academic Dishonesty Questionnaire (ADQ). The measure of academic dishonesty that
was used for screening purposes contains 32 items (see Appendix A). The first item is a yes/no
question that asks respondents whether they have cheated, in any form, in any of their classes
within the past academic year. The subsequent 31 items assess the frequency with which
respondents have engaged in specific academically dishonest behaviors (e.g., copying another
student’s coursework, taking unauthorized materials into an exam, signing for someone else on
an attendance sheet) in the past month (none, once, twice, or 3+ times). Following the lead of
Lucas and Friedrich (2005), 25 of the 31 items on this measure were collected from existing
measures of academic dishonesty in the literature (17 items adapted from Newstead, Franklyn-
Stokes, & Armstead, 1996; 5 items adapted from Koljatic & Silva, 2002; 3 items that Lucas &
Friedrich created themselves). The remaining 6 items were created for this study, in order to
assess several modern forms of technology-based academic dishonesty that were lacking in the
existing items (e.g., copying from Wikipedia, illicitly using a smartphone during an exam). The
purpose of this screening procedure was to ensure that the intervention to decrease cheating
behavior was tested on the appropriate target population, i.e., those who have demonstrated a
tendency to cheat. Participants were deemed eligible if they endorsed at least one of the 32 items.
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 21"
Inventory of Callous-Unemotional traits (ICU). The ICU is a 24-item self-report scale
designed to measure callous and unemotional traits, unique facets of antisociality (Frick, 2004).
Respondents are asked to rate how true each statement is about them on a four point scale
(0=Not at all true, 1=Somewhat true, 2=Very true, 3=Definitely true). The measure has
demonstrated adequate internal consistency (i.e., alphas of .77-.81) and construct validity (i.e.,
highly correlated with aggression, delinquency, skin conductance response, criminal offenses,
etc.; Kimonis et al., 2008). Exploratory and subsequent confirmatory factor analyses supported
the presence of three scale dimensions: Callousness (e.g., “I do not care about doing things
well”), Uncaring (e.g., “I work hard on everything I do”, reverse scored), and Unemotional (e.g.,
“I do not show my emotions to others”).
Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI). The TIPI (Gosling et al., 2003) is a 10-item
self-report scale designed to measure the widely established Five Factor Model (FFM) of
personality. Each item lists two personality traits, and respondents are asked to rate the degree to
which these traits apply to them (range from 1=Disagree strongly to 7=Agree strongly). The
measure has demonstrated good test-retest reliability (mean r=.72), strong convergent validity
with established Big Five measures (i.e., Big Five Inventory), and construct validity (i.e.,
correlation patterns of TIPI with external measures were virtually identical to BFI correlation
patterns; Gosling et al., 2003). The five personality factors represented are Extraversion (e.g.,
“extraverted, enthusiastic”), Agreeableness (e.g., “sympathetic, warm”), Conscientiousness (e.g.,
“dependable, self-disciplined”), Emotional Stability (e.g., “calm, emotionally stable”), and
Openness to Experience (e.g., “open to new experiences, complex”).
Brief Self-Control Scale (BSCS). The BSCS (Tangney et al., 2004) is a 10-item self-
report scale designed to measure individual trait-level self-control. Each item is a statement, and
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 22"
respondents are asked to rate how well that statement represents them (range from 1=Not at all
like me to 5=Very much like me). The measure has demonstrated good internal consistency (i.e.,
alphas of .83-.85), high test-retest reliability (r=.87), and substantial construct validity (i.e.,
highly correlated with GPA, perfectionism, conscientiousness, and other theoretically relevant
variables; Tangney et al., 2004). The majority of the items are reverse scored (e.g., “Pleasure and
fun sometimes keep me from getting work done”) while the remaining items assess self-control
directly (e.g., “People would say that I have very strong self-discipline”).
Manipulation
The first phase of the core study procedures involved a letter-writing exercise with three
conditions. (Note: Although the research assistants were not blind to condition assignment, they
were blind to the study hypotheses.) Participants in the one-part dissonance condition were told
that USC has partnered with several local high schools in a project aimed at encouraging an open
dialogue about cheating and academic integrity in the university setting. To this end, participants
were prompted to write a letter to a high school senior in which they advocate for academic
integrity and include an example of a time when their own integrity was compromised, i.e., a
past instance of academic cheating. They were given 30 minutes to brainstorm and write out the
letter. The purpose of the advocacy portion was for participants to reflect on why academic
integrity is important, and consequently, why academic dishonesty is wrong and harmful, and
ultimately to advocate this point of view to someone else, particularly someone who is likely to
look up to them and take their advice seriously (i.e., a local high school senior; Stone &
Fernandez, 2008). The purpose of the reflection portion was for participants to realize that they
have not always lived up to the principle they have just advocated for, and to become aware of
the inconsistency between their past actions and their current stated position. This condition is a
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 23"
variant on the classic hypocrisy induction paradigm, in that the advocacy and reflection
components are combined into the same exercise. This allows participants more freedom to
structure the letter as they wish.
Participants in the two-part dissonance condition were also told that USC has partnered
up with several local high schools in a project aimed at encouraging an open dialogue about
cheating and academic integrity in the university setting. However, in this condition, participants
were prompted to write a letter to a high school senior in two separate parts. In the first part, they
were instructed to advocate for academic integrity, and list several reasons why it is important in
the collegiate setting. They were given 15 minutes to brainstorm and write out this first part. In
the second part, they were instructed to provide an example of a time when their own integrity
was compromised, i.e., a past instance of academic cheating, in order to make the letter more
relatable to a high schooler, and to emphasize that it isn’t always easy to do the right thing. They
were given 15 minutes to brainstorm and write out this second part. This condition more closely
mirrors the existing hypocrisy induction studies, in which the advocacy and reflection
components are kept separate. Because the task was administered in two parts, the participants
did not have as much flexibility with regard to the letter’s structure.
Participants in the control condition were told that USC has partnered with several local
high schools in a project aimed at preparing students for collegiate life. To this end, participants
were instructed to write out a schedule that reflected a typical day for them in college, including
blocks of time as well as a brief description of what they were doing during that time. They were
asked to choose a day in which their activities were varied, as the schedule would be given to a
high school senior to give him or her a good idea of what to expect from college. They were
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 24"
given 30 minutes to write out this schedule, and had the option to conclude with a brief note to
the student, if they wished.
Outcomes
Matrix task. Next, participants completed two number processing exercises: the matrix
task (Gino & Ariely, 2012) and the die-rolling task (Ariely, Garcia-Rada, Hornuf, & Mann,
2014). The order of these two exercises was randomized across participants. In the matrix task,
participants were provided a sheet with 20 number matrices on it. Each matrix contains 12
numbers. For each matrix, the participant’s job was to find the two numbers that added up to
exactly 10. Once they found the numbers, they were to circle both, and then check a box
underneath the matrix that read “Found it” (see Figure 1 for a sample). They were informed that
they would be compensated for their performance at a rate of 15¢ per matrix. Participants had
five minutes to complete as many of the matrices as possible. Although the research assistant
remained in the room, she sat three seats away from the participant and worked independently, in
the hopes of making the participant feel unmonitored during the five minute matrix exercise.
Once the five minutes were up, participants were instructed to count up the number of
matrices they solved, and record this number on a separate collection slip, along with their age
and gender. Participants were then told that they could throw their matrix task sheet in the
recycling bin and hand in the collection slip to the research assistant. In this way, participants
had the opportunity to cheat by lying when reporting the number of matrices completed on the
collection slip, in order to maximize their payout. Once the participant left the study, the research
assistant collected their matrix task from the recycling bin and stapled it to their collection slip.
In this procedure, there are two ways to cheat. The first, more straightforward means of
cheating is to overreport the number of matrices solved on the collection slip (e.g., participant
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 25"
solved 5 matrices, but wrote on the collection slip that they solved 6). The second, more covert
means of cheating is to circle numbers at random on the matrix task sheet, so that at a glance, it
may appear that the participant solved a certain number of matrices, but in reality, the numbers
don’t add up to 10 (e.g., participant “completed” 6 matrices and wrote on the collection slip that
they solved 6, but only 5 of the 6 were actually correct). Altogether, this task yielded two
individual-level dichotomous outcomes: cheating via overreporting the number of matrices
completed, and cheating via overreporting the number of matrices completed correctly.
The matrix task was adapted from Gino and Ariely’s (2012) study, which similarly
implemented the task as a behavioral indicator of dishonesty in an undergraduate population.
During pilot testing of the task, participants reported that overreporting the number of matrices
completed on the collection slip would be unethical, which lends construct validity to the
outcome as an indicator of dishonesty and cheating. In the actual study, Gino and Ariely reported
cheating rates on this task ranging from 27-49%, and even participants in the control condition
overreported their performance by an average of one matrix (Gino & Ariely, 2012). These
authors only used the first, more straightforward cheating outcome described above, that is,
overreporting the number of matrices completed; they did not take into account how many of the
matrices were completed correctly. Aside from the addition of this second cheating outcome, the
task procedure used in this study also differed from Gino and Ariely’s implementation of the task
in the compensation amount: they compensated participants at a rate of 25¢ per matrix solved,
while this study offered participants only 15¢ per matrix solved, due to limited funds.
Die task. The second number processing task involved a six-sided die, and the task
instructions were as follows. For each turn, participants were told to choose a side in their mind:
top or bottom. Then, participants were asked to roll the die. This would mark their first turn, and
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 26"
participants completed a record sheet indicating which side they chose in advance (top or
bottom), as well as the roll outcome that corresponded to that choice (e.g., if 6 were facing up
and they chose “top”, 6 is the roll outcome; if 6 were facing up and they chose “bottom”, 1 is the
roll outcome). Each participant completed 40 turns of this exercise, recording their a priori
choice (top or bottom) and the roll outcome (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6) for each turn. Similar to the
matrix task, while participants were completing the exercise, the research assistant sat three seats
away and worked independently, in order to give the participant the impression of being
unmonitored. At the end of the task, the research assistant provided a random number between 1-
40, and this number corresponded to the turn that would determine their payment. For example,
if the random number generator yielded 23, then the research assistant would refer to the 23
rd

turn, and pay participants at a rate of 40¢ per dot for the outcome of that turn. The payment
scheme was explained to participants before they began the exercise.
Participants had the opportunity to cheat on this task because they were asked to record
their “top or bottom” choice after the die had already been rolled. Therefore, knowing that
increasing the proportion of high rolls would increase the likelihood of receiving a higher
payout, participants could have lied about which side they chose in advance, in order to
maximize their profit. For example, if the participant chose “bottom” for the turn, then rolled the
die and saw that the “bottom” outcome was 2 and the “top” outcome was 5, they could have
recorded their purportedly a priori choice as “top”, and their outcome as 5. This form of cheating
is impossible to detect at the individual level, as we have no way of knowing which side
participants selected in advance. However, at the group level, random chance dictates that the
mean number of high rolls (4, 5, or 6) out of 40, across many participants, would be 20. Any
deviation from 20, therefore, suggests that participants lied across several of their turns in order
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 27"
to maximize their profit. Similarly, random chance dictates that the mean payout of the die task,
across many participants, would be $1.40, because the possible payouts range from $0.40 (roll
outcome=1) to $2.40 (roll outcome=6). Any deviation from $1.40 would also suggest that
participants lied about their side choice to improve their chances of a higher payout. All in all,
therefore, this task yielded two group-level continuous cheating outcomes: number of high rolls
(range 1-40, expected mean=20) and die task payout (range $0.40-2.40, expected mean=$1.40).
After participants completed the matrix task and the die task, they were paid their total earnings
(15¢ per matrix solved, 40¢ per dot on outcome turn) in exact change.
The die task was adapted from Ariely, Garcia-Rada, Hornuf, and Mann’s (2014) study,
which used it as a group-level cheating indicator in a population of German adults. In this study,
different groups reported rates of high rolls ranging from 55-60%, which corresponds to a
cheating level that was 10-20% of the total feasible cheating (i.e., reporting 100% high rolls).
Similar to the matrix task, the only difference between Ariely and colleagues’ implementation of
the task and the task procedure used in this study was the compensation amount: the authors
compensated participants at a rate of 1€ per dot on the selected turn, while this study offered
participants only 40¢ per dot on the selected turn, due to limited funds.
Debriefing
Finally, participants were debriefed by the research assistant. The debriefing statement
revealed the true experimental purpose of the study, i.e., to see if writing the letter would affect
their decision to cheat on the laboratory tasks. The research assistant also clarified that the
laboratory tasks were designed to make cheating a tempting option, in order to assuage any
negative affect the participants may have felt regarding their decision to cheat on the tasks. At
this point, participants had the option of withdrawing their data, since they were considered to
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 28"
not be fully consented. (Note: No participants chose to withdraw their data.) Participants were
also asked whether they had spoken to anyone (e.g., past study participants) about the true nature
of the study purpose – no participants indicated any awareness of the study purpose in advance.
Before leaving, participants were asked not to share the content of the study procedures with
anyone else, in order to maintain the naiveté of other subject pool participants.
"
Results
Pre-Intervention Characteristics
A total of 85 participants were randomly assigned to one of the three letter conditions:
one-part dissonance (N=33), two-part dissonance (N=26), and control (N=26). No pre-
intervention differences were found between the three groups on any demographic or personality
measure assessed (all p’s > .10, see Table 1).
Analyses
A priori power analyses were conducted in G*Power 3 (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, &
Buchner, 2007). To investigate the primary hypothesis that condition impacted behavioral
cheating, the following analyses were undertaken. For the matrix task, a chi-square test of
independence was run to see whether condition and decision to cheat (yes/no) were independent.
This analysis was conducted twice: once for cheating by overreporting the number of matrices
completed, and once for cheating by overreporting the number of matrices completed correctly.
One participant was excluded from analyses because of incorrect completion of the matrix task.
A priori power analysis (parameters: α=.05, df=2, N=84) indicated that these analyses had 0.8
power to detect an effect as small as w=.34 (medium effect).
For the die task, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was run to see whether
condition impacted dishonest behavior on the task. This analysis was conducted twice: once for
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 29"
the number of high rolls, and once for the die task payout. A priori power analysis (parameters:
α=.05, # of groups=3, N=85) indicated that these analyses had 0.8 power to detect an effect as
small as f=.34 (medium-large effect).
To explore the potential impact of categorical moderating variables on the dichotomous
cheating outcome of overreporting the number of matrices completed correctly, several binomial
logistic regressions were run. A priori power analysis (parameters: tails=2, α=.05,
Pr(Y=1|X=1)H0=.75, N=84, R
2
other X=.1) indicated that these analyses had 0.8 power to detect
an effect as small as OR=2.26 (small-medium effect; Chen, Cohen, & Chen, 2010).
To explore the potential impact of categorical moderating variables on the two
continuous outcomes from the die task, several factorial ANOVAs were run. For the
dichotomous moderators of gender and year, 3x2 between-subjects factorial ANOVAs were run.
A priori power analysis (parameters: α=.05, N=85, numerator df=2, # of groups=6) indicated that
these analyses had 0.8 power to detect an effect as small as f=.34 (medium-large effect). For the
three-group moderator of ethnicity, a 3x3 between-subjects factorial ANOVA was run. A priori
power analysis (parameters: α=.05, N=85, numerator df=4, # of groups=9) indicated that this
analysis had 0.8 power to detect an effect as small as f=.39 (large effect).
To explore the potential impact of continuous moderating variables on the two
continuous outcomes from the die task, several linear multiple regressions were run. A priori
power analysis (parameters: α=.05, N=85, # of tested predictors=3, # of total predictors=3)
indicated that these analyses had 0.8 power to detect an effect as small as f
2
=.13 (medium effect).
Matrix Task
Main effects. Table 2 presents the group frequencies for cheating by overreporting the
number of matrices completed. Because only 5 of 84 participants cheated in this fashion,
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 30"
however, the cheating rate was too low for viable analysis. Valid chi-square tests of
independence typically require an expected cell frequency of 5 or above for each cell, but the
data at hand violated this assumption. For this reason, neither chi-square analyses for main
effects nor logistic regression analyses for moderation were undertaken for this outcome.
Table 2 also presents the group frequencies for cheating by overreporting the number of
matrices completed correctly. A chi-square test on these frequencies was not statistically
significant.
Moderation. The results of binomial logistic regression analyses examining the
moderating effects of gender, year, and ethnicity on cheating by overreporting the number of
matrices completed are presented in Table 3. There was no significant evidence of moderation by
gender or ethnicity on the relationship between condition and cheating in this fashion.
However, a binary logistic regression with condition, year, and a condition x year product
term did marginally predict the likelihood of cheating by overreporting the number of matrices
completed correctly, meaning that year in school moderated the effect of letter condition on this
form of matrix task cheating. The odds ratios and significance of each of the predictors are
presented in Table 4. Condition (p=.07) and year (p=.08) marginally contributed to predictions
made with all three factors included in the regression equation; however, their product term
made a significant contribution to the predictive value of the equation, p=.02.
Table 5 and Figure 2 present the observed frequencies of cheating by overreporting the
number of matrices completed correctly by letter condition for lowerclassmen and
upperclassmen separately. Condition had a significant effect on this form of matrix task cheating
for upperclassmen only, but not for lowerclassmen. Upperclassmen participants in the one-part
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 31"
dissonance condition cheated at a rate of 60%, compared to 10% in the two-part dissonance
condition and 12.5% in the control condition.
Die Task
Main effects. Table 6 presents the means and standard deviations for the number of high
rolls in each of the three letter conditions. A one-way between-subjects ANOVA indicated a
non-significant effect for letter condition. Furthermore, one-sample t-tests indicated that the
mean number of high rolls was not significantly different from the expected mean of 20 in any of
the three letter conditions (all p’s > .17).
Table 6 also presents the means and standard deviations for the die payout in each of the
three letter conditions. A one-way between-subjects ANOVA indicated a marginally significant
effect for letter condition. Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated a
marginally higher payout in the one-part dissonance condition compared to the two-part
dissonance condition, p=.07, d=.59. There was no significant difference in the die payout
between each of the dissonance conditions and the control condition. One-sample t-tests
indicated that the mean payout in the one-part dissonance condition was significantly higher than
the expected mean of $1.40, p<.01, d=.58. The mean payouts in the two-part dissonance and
control conditions were not significantly different from $1.40 (p’s > .16).
Moderation.
Categorical moderators. Factorial ANOVAs examining the moderating impact of
gender, year, and ethnicity on the relationship between condition and die task outcomes are
presented in Table 7. There was no significant evidence of moderation by gender or year on the
relationship between condition and either die task outcome.
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 32"
However, a 3x3 factorial ANOVA indicated a marginally significant ethnicity x condition
interaction effect on high rolls. Table 8 and Figure 3 present the means and standard deviations
of the high rolls outcome based on letter condition for Asian, White and Other participants
separately. Follow-up ANOVAs indicated that condition marginally predicted high rolls only for
Asian participants. Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that those in the
one-part dissonance group had significantly more high rolls than those in the two-part dissonance
group, p=.05, d=.95. Neither of the dissonance groups differed significantly from the control
group. One sample t-tests indicated that the mean number of high rolls in the one-part dissonance
condition was significantly higher than the expected mean of 20, p=.02, d=.47. The mean
number of high rolls in the two-part dissonance and control conditions were not significantly
different from 20 (p’s > .59). There was no significant ethnicity x condition interaction effect on
die payout.
Continuous moderators. All of the variables used in the subsequent regression equations
were mean-centered. Product terms to examine moderation were computed with the standardized
variables. The results of multiple regression analyses examining the moderating effect of GPA,
academic dishonesty, callous-unemotional (CU) traits, the Big Five personality variables, and
self-control on the relationship between condition and die task outcomes are presented in Table
9. There was no evidence of moderation by GPA, CU traits, Big Five personality traits, or self-
control on either die task outcome.
However, a multiple regression with condition, academic dishonesty, and a condition x
academic dishonesty product term entered into the equation did predict die payout, meaning that
academic dishonesty moderated the effect of letter condition on die payout. The beta weights and
significance of each of the three predictors are presented in Table 10. Condition ( =-.08, p=.42)
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 33"
did not significantly contribute to predictions made with all three factors included in the
regression equation; however, both academic dishonesty ( =.22, p=.06) and the product term (
=-.20, p=.08) made marginally significant contributions to the predictive value of the equation.
In order to interpret this finding, the continuous academic dishonesty variable was
categorized into three levels: low academic dishonesty (AD=31-33), moderate academic
dishonesty (AD=34-36), and high academic dishonesty (AD>36). Table 11 and Figure 4 present
the means and standard deviations of the die payout outcome based on letter condition for
participants low, moderate, and high on academic dishonesty separately. Condition marginally
predicted die payout only for those with high previous academic dishonesty. Post hoc
comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that none of the pairwise comparisons yielded
significant differences (all p’s>.14). One-sample t-tests indicated that the payout in the one-part
dissonance condition was significantly higher than the expected mean of $1.40, p<.01, d=1.11.
Academic dishonesty did not moderate the effect of condition on high rolls.
Discussion
This study represents the first known empirical investigation of a combined hypocrisy
induction intervention, in which both the advocacy and the reflection components comprise a
single activity. Comparing the novel one-part intervention to both a two-part intervention that
more closely mimics those in the hypocrisy induction literature, and an inert control condition,
allowed the investigation of two important questions. First, this design permitted exploration of
whether the one-part intervention was effective at reducing behavioral cheating outcomes (i.e.,
compared to control). Second, it allowed comparison of the one-part intervention to the two-part
intervention, to determine whether they were equally effective. If they were, the one-part
intervention would represent a methodological advance in terms of expediency, efficiency, and
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 34"
cost-effectiveness. Importantly, and counterintuitively, the one-part dissonance intervention had
iatrogenic effects on behavioral cheating outcomes, and the two-part dissonance intervention had
null effects.
Intervention Effects
One of the primary experimental goals described above was to determine whether a one-
part dissonance intervention could achieve the same effect as the two-part dissonance
interventions that prevail in the existing hypocrisy induction literature. The data presented herein
are remarkably consistent in answering this question: across several outcomes, the two-part
dissonance intervention worked in the expected direction, although not significantly, whereas the
one-part dissonance intervention had iatrogenic effects. Participants in the one-part dissonance
condition had the highest cheating levels across both outcomes for both of the behavioral
cheating tasks. At the surface, these results may seem surprising, as the only difference between
the two conditions was that the two-part dissonance group wrote the letter in two separate 15-
minute exercises, while the one-part dissonance group wrote the letter in a single 30-minute
exercise. The instructions, which described what to include in the letter, were virtually identical
across the two conditions. Nonetheless, the results suggest that the effect of splitting the letter-
writing exercise is consistent and iatrogenic, which begs the question of what causes this
surprising effect.
One possible explanation has to do with participants in the two-part dissonance condition
writing the advocacy portion of the letter while blind to what the second part of the letter would
entail. The subjective experience of the two-part dissonance letter-writing exercise could have
proceeded as follows: First, participants were given instructions to advocate for the importance
of academic integrity. While writing the first half of the letter, they may have engaged fully with
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 35"
the exercise of generating reasons why academic integrity is important. Because, at this point,
there is no mention of providing an example or considering the personal relevance of academic
integrity, they would have no evident reason to temper their advocacy or the strength of their
position. Once part one of the letter was complete, participants received the unexpected
instructions to provide an example from their own personal history that stands in contrast to the
position they advocated for. At this point, they have preached academic integrity in a “no holds
barred” fashion, and they cannot take it back. They are now starkly confronted by their own
hypocrisy in having to describe an instance of personal failure to live in accordance with the
principle they have just advocated for. Indeed, this is precisely how the hypocrisy induction
paradigm should work: a review of hypocrisy induction studies has led prominent theorists to
state that the two conditions necessary for experiencing hypocrisy as dissonance are to write a
pro-attitudinal statement that you are personally responsible for, and to be reminded of your prior
discrepant behavior. At this point, the most straightforward way to reduce dissonance is to
change your future behavior so that it is consonant with the advocated position (Cooper, 2007, p.
175). When participants are finished writing their letter, they are presented with the matrix and
die tasks, which provides an opportunity to reduce their dissonance by completing the tasks
honestly. In fact, on the die task, participants in the two-part dissonance condition did not cheat.
The contrasting experience of those in the one-part dissonance group could have
proceeded as follows. All at once, participants receive instructions to write a letter that includes
an advocacy component on the importance of academic integrity, as well as a personal example
of failure to live up to it. These participants are free to structure the letter as they wish, provided
that they include these two components. In planning the structure of the letter, participants may
have come to the realization that they have not always lived up to the position they are preparing
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 36"
to advocate for. At this point, the hypothesized dissonance may have been successfully elicited in
participants. However, they now have to actually write the letter – an exercise that they may use
to reduce their dissonance. Indeed, research has demonstrated that when conditions make it easy
to do so, participants will take the first available opportunity to reduce their dissonance (Simon,
Greenberg, & Brehm, 1995). For participants in the two-part dissonance condition, the first
available opportunity to reduce dissonance was presented in the matrix and die tasks – by acting
honestly on these tasks, they acted in a way that was consistent with their pro-attitudinal letter. In
contrast, for participants in the one-part dissonance condition, the first available opportunity to
reduce dissonance was presented in the exercise of writing the letter itself. This dissonance
reduction could have been accomplished in any number of ways: participants could have
diminished the importance of the personal example (e.g., I cheated once, in a minor way, when I
was younger; I have since matured and now my integrity is one of the things I am most proud
of), tempered their advocacy (e.g., academic integrity is important in the real world, but in
college, you will find that sometimes bending the rules is the only way to get ahead), or devalued
the activity as a whole (e.g., let me just write this stupid thing and get it over with so that I can
get my credits). In other words, because both of the task elements were revealed at once,
participants may have experienced cognitive dissonance and used their letter to reduce it. This
hypothetical explanation can be explored qualitatively by examining the content of the letters
themselves, an endeavor that was not undertaken for the study herein, and which is discussed
further in the Future Directions section below.
Explaining Moderation Effects
The tertiary hypothesis, that callous-unemotional traits would moderate the effect of letter
condition on cheating outcomes, was not supported. In fact, none of the personality variables that
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 37"
were explored as potential moderators of intervention efficacy demonstrated a significant effect.
This suggests that the pattern of intervention effects, with one-part dissonance producing
cheating rates significantly higher than both two-part dissonance and control, was consistent
across levels of callous-unemotional traits, Big Five personality traits, and trait-level self-control.
However, analyses exploring whether demographic or pre-intervention academic variables
impacted the intervention effects yielded several moderation effects. The pattern of iatrogenic
effects from the one-part dissonance condition were amplified among three groups:
upperclassmen, Asian participants, and participants who had the highest levels of pre-
intervention academic dishonesty.
Year in school. For upperclassmen only, letter condition demonstrated a significant
effect on matrix task cheating rates: six participants cheated in the one-part dissonance condition,
whereas only one participant cheated in both the two-part dissonance and the control conditions.
For lowerclassmen, letter condition had no effect on cheating rates. There are several possible
explanations for this moderation effect. First, lowerclassmen are largely subject pool novices that
are naïve to psychological research, including its manipulations, deceptions, and expectations.
Upperclassmen, on the other hand, have typically participated in a wide range of behavioral
experiments in prior years and are savvy to psychological manipulations and aware of their
desired effects. This phenomenon is long-standing and well-documented in the literature on the
problems of using undergraduate subject pools for psychological research (Lipton & Garza,
1978). Prior experience with the subject pool, as well as the increased knowledge base of
upperclassmen from their early psychology courses, can influence reactions to experimental
manipulations: participants may see through the manipulation (Stricker, Messick & Jackson,
1967), attempt to guess at the experiment’s true purpose (Kelman, 1967), or react differently
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 38"
based on debriefing from past subject pool experiments (Silverman, Shulman, & Wiesenthal,
1970). This savviness may have amplified the reactance that resulted from seeing the dissonance
coming in the one-part dissonance condition, which, in turn, could have differentially led
upperclassmen participants to take the letter-writing as an opportunity to reduce dissonance.
An alternative explanation arises from identity theory, which posits that whether
individuals have an immoral identity, a somewhat moral identity, or a very moral identity, they
will be motivated to act in accordance with this identity (Stryker & Burke, 2000). Indeed, it has
been experimentally verified that individuals’ behavior is guided by their moral identity,
regardless of where they fall on the continuum of morality (Stets & Carter, 2011). Reviews of the
literature on college cheating have indicated that advanced students cheat at higher rates than
lowerclassmen (Whitley, 1998). Thus, it can be reasonably argued that the cheating patterns of
these advanced students are more established, and they are more likely than lowerclassmen to
have incorporated this behavior into their moral identity. In this case, upperclassmen participants
may have been particularly reactive to the one-part dissonance letter-writing exercise. In turn,
they may have used this letter to confirm their (im)moral identity by tempering their advocacy,
and subsequently acted in a way that is consistent with their current placement on the continuum
of moral identity, i.e., cheated on the laboratory tasks. In other words, the one-part letter-writing
task may have made their cheating identity particularly salient (“I am a cheater”), which could
have motivated participants to act in a way that was consonant with this identity as a form of
self-verification, i.e., overreport on the matrix task in order to maximize their profit (“I am a
cheater, and cheaters cheat”; Stryker & Burke, 2000). Future research should focus on
illuminating the differential effectiveness of cognitive dissonance based interventions on
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 39"
lowerclassmen versus upperclassmen, in order to time interventions targeting cheating most
effectively.
Ethnicity. For Asian participants only, letter condition significantly predicted the number
of high rolls on the die task: those in the one-part dissonance condition had a significantly greater
mean number of high rolls compared to participants in the two-part dissonance condition. The
many differences between individuals from so-called collectivist (i.e., interdependent) and
individualist (i.e., independent) cultures has received no shortage of attention in cultural
psychological research, and the literature on cognitive dissonance is no exception (see Cooper,
2007, p.137-147 for a review). Prominent reviews have suggested that cognitive dissonance is
less likely to occur in individuals from interdependent cultures, where public status, roles, and
interpersonal consequences are valued more highly than private attitudes or opinions, and
consistency between the two does not hold the same fundamental importance that it does in
independent cultures (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). However, Cooper (2007), in his
reconceptualization of cognitive dissonance as resulting from aversive consequences, states that
those from interdependent cultures may experience dissonance, but only when the aversive
consequences are interpersonal in nature (p.143). In contrast, intrapersonal consequences are
sufficient to elicit dissonance for individuals from independent cultures. Therefore, in the context
of the study procedures discussed herein, Asian participants in the two-part dissonance condition
may have taken the exercise very seriously: the task of advocating to a younger peer, in the
position of a role model, could have been highly valued due to its interpersonal nature. By the
same token, the subsequent reminder that one has not always held up the advocated principle
oneself, would have been a fundamentally aversive interpersonal consequence: after advocating
for academic integrity to a younger peer seeking mentorship, the participant was forced to
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 40"
confront their own hypocrisy. In contrast, participants in the one-part dissonance condition may
have conceptualized the entire letter, presented in one exercise, as an interpersonal task that is
positive in nature: participants had the opportunity to fulfill the role of a mentor, and positively
impact their mentee by providing a personal example of past cheating to supplement their
advocacy. By rising to the demands of the task to bring about a positive outcome, Asian
participants may not have experienced dissonance in the one-part dissonance condition
whatsoever. Therefore, when faced with the purportedly unrelated laboratory tasks, they may
have opted to cheat simply for the financial incentive, or perhaps due to the high achievement
orientation characteristic of Asian cultures (Markus & Kitayama, 1991).
Academic dishonesty. For participants high on academic dishonesty only, letter
condition demonstrated a significant effect on the die task payout: those in the one-part
dissonance condition were paid the most, and significantly more than would have been expected
by chance. This finding can be interpreted similarly to the moderating effect of year in school: in
the same way that upperclassmen, who typically cheat at higher rates than lowerclassmen, are
more likely to have incorporated cheating behavior into their moral identity, individuals with the
highest levels of pre-intervention academic dishonesty are also more likely to have built their
regular cheating behavior into their moral identity, and consider themselves cheaters. Thus, the
one-part dissonance condition may have made this immoral identity particularly salient for
individuals high on academic dishonesty, and led them to act accordingly, i.e., by cheating on the
subsequent die task and earning a higher payout. Taken alongside the finding of moderation by
year, this result points to the need for further research to determine the differential effectiveness
of interventions targeting academic dishonesty on individuals undergoing an academic transition
as compared to those that are already entrenched in regular cheating behavior.
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 41"
Limitations
Matrix task. One major limitation of this undertaking which ought to be taken into
account is that the matrix task, one of the two behavioral cheating outcomes, did not work as
expected, and yielded a cheating rate of only 6% (5 of 84 participants). Mazar, Amir, and Ariely
(2008) were the first to implement the task in behavioral research. These authors designed the
task specifically so that respondents could unambiguously evaluate whether they had solved the
matrix correctly, assuming they could add up two numbers to 10. According to pre-test surveys
conducted as part of this study, students predicted that participants would cheat on this task, if
given the opportunity.
The task, as implemented by Mazar and colleagues (2008), which did produce cheating
rates high enough to support the utility of the task as a behavioral dishonesty outcome, differed
from the task in this study in several important ways. First, the researchers did not collect the
matrix sheet – participants were permitted to put the matrix sheet in their personal belongings
and report how many matrices they had solved on the collection slip. In the control group,
participants did hand in their matrix sheet, and it was reviewed by research assistants in order to
determine how many were correctly solved. The authors then compared the mean number of
matrices solved in the control group to those solved in the group that had the opportunity to cheat
– the higher mean in this latter group was taken as evidence of cheating. This method of running
the task has clear benefits and drawbacks – the primary benefit is that participants may have felt
more inclined to cheat by knowing they could “get away with it”. Participants in the study
described herein may have been suspicious of placing their matrix sheet into the recycling bin
where the research assistant could (and indeed, did) collect it after they left. Mazar and
colleagues (2008) may have obtained higher cheating rates because of this. However, the
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 42"
drawback to this method is that one cannot confirm definitively whether each individual
participant cheated. Differences in mean number of matrices completed between the groups is
taken as evidence of cheating, but this evidence is indirect, and these findings could be rendered
unreliable if there were unaccounted for differences between the groups that may have led one to
genuinely perform better on the matrix task.
The other potentially important difference between the matrix task in existing studies
(Gino & Ariely, 2012; Mazar et al., 2008) and the matrix task in this study is the financial
incentive to cheat. Participants in Gino and Ariely’s study were compensated at a rate of 25¢ per
matrix solved, for a possible total of $5. The compensation amount per matrix in Mazar and
colleagues’ version ranged from 50¢ to $2 per matrix solved, for a possible total ranging from
$10-40. In contrast, due to limited funds, this study compensated participants at a rate of 15¢ per
matrix solved, for a possible total of $3, which may not have been adequate to incentivize them
to cheat. However, Mazar and colleagues (2008) who tested the task at compensation rates of
50¢ and $2 per matrix, found no significant differences in cheating rates between these two
groups. In fact, the means actually suggested that those in the lower compensation group (50¢
per matrix) cheated at higher rates than those in the higher compensation group. Furthermore,
Dr. Dan Ariely, one of the creators of the task, predicted that the lower compensation rate of 15¢
per matrix would not significantly diminish cheating rates (personal communication, March 11,
2015).
The fact remains that despite expectations that the matrix task, as implemented in this
study, would yield viable cheating rates, only 5 of the 84 total participants explicitly cheated on
the task, as operationalized by Gino and Ariely (2012). This 6% cheating rate precluded
meaningful statistical analysis of the data, as several cells in the chi-square table had an expected
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 43"
count less than N=5. However, while coding the data, it became evident that a higher number of
participants solved a proportion of the matrices incorrectly (i.e., the two numbers circled did not
sum to 10), yet reported these as correctly solved on their collection slip. After consultation with
Dr. Ariely, a second cheating outcome was coded to reflect the incidence of participants
overreporting the number of matrices they completed correctly on the task. However, this
outcome should be interpreted with caution. It is possible, and perhaps probable, that participants
who overreported the number of matrices completed correctly did so with dishonest intentions,
i.e., they circled two numbers that they knew did not add up to 10 so that a quick visual
inspection of the sheet would show the matrix as completed. Indeed, as mentioned, the task was
designed so that respondents would know definitively whether they had completed each matrix
correctly (Mazar et al., 2008). However, it is also possible that these were “honest” mistakes, i.e.,
participants were trying to complete as many matrices as possible in a limited time, genuinely
thought that the two numbers added to 10, and failed to check their work and realize their
mistake. Because the participants’ intentions remain unknown, the result is an ambiguous
outcome, which may reflect genuine cheating, but also may reflect, in part, diminished math
ability, careless work, or some combination of these. In the future, pre-testing of the task in the
setting where it will be implemented would be prudent in order to ensure a meaningful cheating
rate.
Assessing dissonance. Another limitation to the study is that it did not attempt to assess
cognitive dissonance per se. Therefore, interpretations within the framework of dissonance
theory remain speculative, as we did not include any dissonance proxy measure as part of the
study procedures. Dissonance proxy measures typically assess dissonance-related affect (e.g.,
discomfort, ambivalence), as well as dissonance-related cognitions (e.g., trivialization, suspicion;
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 44"
Sweeney, Hausknecht, & Soutar, 2000). During pilot testing of the letter-writing procedures, the
one-part dissonance and two-part dissonance conditions elicited higher levels of dissonance-
related affect and cognitions on a dissonance proxy measure than the control condition. It
remains unclear whether this study replicated these pilot results, due to our failure to assess
dissonance proxies.
Statistical limitations. The final two limitations are statistical in nature. Several of the
effects interpreted above attained only marginal statistical significance (p=.05-.10), and should
therefore be interpreted with caution. Although marginal results can be taken as preliminary
evidence that effects exist in a particular direction, they must be regarded as preliminary,
pending confirmation of the results with continued data collection or replication in an
independent sample. Finally, the majority of the analyses undertaken herein, with N=85, were
underpowered to detect a small effect. Although several of the results described represented
moderate-large effects, it is possible that more subtle effects went undetected due to a limited
sample size.
Future Directions
The data that are presented in this paper come from N=85 participants who were run
through the core study procedures between Feb. 27 and Apr. 17, 2015. However, data collection
continued through Apr. 30, 2015, which was the date that the subject pool closed. Therefore, data
from 10-20 additional participants has been collected, but not yet analyzed. The analyses
described above will be undertaken again using the complete dataset, with this moderately
increased sample size, in order to determine whether the effects continue in the demonstrated
direction. With this increased sample size, it is possible that the effects may become null, or may
attain statistical significance, which will inform future research directions.
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 45"
The 85 participants that were run through the core study procedures are also being
contacted four weeks after their participation in order to complete the ADQ. This 4-week follow-
up data will permit analysis of an alternative outcome measure: a long-term self-report measure
of academic dishonesty, rather than the immediate behavioral cheating outcomes described
herein. Because we have pre-intervention ADQ data on all of the participants, pre-intervention
ADQ levels can be controlled for when analyzing post-intervention ADQ levels, which will
allow for a test with greater power to detect more modest effects. The ADQ will also be
administered one month into next semester, which will provide a longer term 5-7 month follow-
up to assess longitudinal effects.
Finally, the findings and interpretations described above did not take into account the
content of the letters themselves. In the future, the handwritten letters will be examined and
coded, in order to shed light on the pattern of results. For example, this qualitative exploration
will permit analysis of whether participants followed task instructions, whether certain groups
demonstrated more reactance than others, or, more generally, whether the one-part dissonance
and two-part dissonance letters differed in some systematic way that may explain the disparities
in cheating outcomes across these two conditions.

DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 46"
References
Ariely, D., Garcia-Rada, X., Hornuf, L., Mann, H. (2014). The (true) legacy of two really
existing economic systems. Munich Discussion Paper No. 2014-26.
Aronson, E., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1963). The effect of the severity of threat on the devaluation of
forbidden behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 584-588.
Aronson, E., & Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59(2), 177-181.
Aronson, E., Fried, C., & Stone, J. (1991). Overcoming denial and increasing the intention to use
condoms through the induction of hypocrisy. American Journal of Public Health, 81(12),
1636-1638.
Axsom, D., & Cooper, J. (1985). Cognitive dissonance and psychotherapy: The role of effort
justification in inducing weight loss. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21(2),
149-160.
Bowers, 1. J. (1964). Student dishonesty and its control in college. New York, NY: Bureau of
Applied Social Research.
Bushweller, K. (1999). Student cheating: A moral moratorium. The Education Digest, 65(3), 4-
11.
Carlsmith , J. M., Collins, B. E., & Helmreich, R. L. (1966). Studies in forced compliance: The
effect of pressure for compliance on attitude change produced by face-to-face role
playing and anonymous essay writing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
4(1), 1-13.
Chen, H., Cohen, P., & Chen, S. (2010). How big is a big odds ratio? Interpreting the magnitudes
of odds ratios in epidemiological studies. Communications in Statistics: Simulation and
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 47"
Computation, 39(4), 860-864.
Cohen, A. R. (1962). An experiment on small rewards for discrepant compliance and attitude
change. In J. W. Brehm & A. R. Cohen (Eds.), Explorations in Cognitive Dissonance.
New York: Wiley.
Cooper, J. (2007). Cognitive dissonance: Fifty years of a classic theory. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Coren, A. (2011). Turning a blind eye: Faculty who ignore student cheating. Journal of
Academic Ethics, 9(4), 291-305.
Davis, K. E., & Jones, E. E. (1960). Changes in interpersonal perception as a means of reducing
cognitive dissonance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61(3), 402-410.
Dickerson, C. A., Thibodeau, R., Aronson, E., & Miller, D. (1992). Using cognitive dissonance
to encourage water conservation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(11), 841-854.
Fass, R. A. (1986). By honor bound: Encouraging academic honesty. Educational Record, 32-35.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical
power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior
Research Methods, 39(2), 175-191.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Frick, P. J. (2004). The inventory of callous-unemotional traits. Unpublished rating scale.
Fried, C. B., & Aronson, A. (1995). Hypocrisy, misattribution, and dissonance reduction.
Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(9), 925-933.
Genereux, R. L., & McLeod, B. A. (1995). Circumstances surrounding cheating: A questionnaire
study of college students. Research in Higher Education, 36(6), 687-704.
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 48"
Gino, F., & Ariely, D. (2012). The dark side of creativity: Original thinkers can be more
dishonest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 445-459.
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., Swann Jr, W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five
personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504-528.
Graham, M. A., Monday, J., O'Brien, K., & Steffen, S. (1994). Cheating at small colleges: An
examination of student and faculty attitudes and behaviors. Journal of College Student
Development, 35(4), 255-260.
Grier, L. K., & Firestone, I. J. (1998). The effects of an intervention to advance moral reasoning
and efficacy. Child Study Journal, 28(4), 267-290.
Gringart, E., Helmes, E., & Speelman, C. (2008). Harnessing cognitive dissonance to promote
positive attitudes toward older workers in Australia. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 38(3), 751-778.
Harding, T. S., Mayhew, M. J., Finelli, C. J., & Carpenter, D. D. (2007). The theory of planned
behavior as a model of academic dishonesty in engineering and humanities
undergraduates. Ethics and Behavior, 17(3), 255-279.
Harmon-Jones, E., Brehm, J. W., Greenberg, J., Simon, L., & Nelson, D. E. (1996). Evidence
that the production of aversive consequences is not necessary to create cognitive
dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 5-16.
Hing, L. S. S., Li, W., Zanna, M. P. (2002). Inducing hypocrisy to reduce prejudicial responses
among aversive racists. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(1), 71-78.
Jendrek, M. P. (1989). Faculty reactions to academic dishonesty. Journal of College Student
Development, 30(5), 401-406.
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 49"
Kantola, S. J., Syme, G. J., & Campbell, N. A. (1984). Cognitive dissonance & energy
conservation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(3), 416-421.
Kelman, H. C. (1967). Human use of human subjects: The problem of deception in social
psychological experiments. Psychological Bulletin, 67(1), 1-11.
Kimonis, E. R., Frick, P. J., Skeem, J., Marsee, M. A., Cruise, K., Munoz, L. C., & Aucoin, A. J.
(2008). Assessing callous-unemotional traits in adolescent offenders: Validation of the
Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry,
31(3), 241-252.
Koljatic, M., & Silva, M. (2002). Comparison of students' and faculty’s perceptions of
occurrence of dishonest academic behaviors. Psychological Reports, 90, 883-888.
Lipton, J. P., & Garza, R. T. (1978) Further evidence for subject pool contamination. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 535-539.
Lucas, G. M., & Friedrich, J. (2005). Individual differences in workplace deviance and integrity
as predictors of academic dishonesty. Ethics and Behavior, 15(1), 15-35.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion,
and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253.
May, K. M., & Loyd, B. H. (1993). Academic dishonesty: The honors system and students'
attitudes. Journal of College Student Development, 34(2), 125-129.
Mazar, N., Amir, O., & Ariely, D. (2008). The dishonesty of honest people: A theory of self-
concept maintenance. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(6), 633-644.
McCabe, D. L., & Treviño, L. K. (1997). Individual and contextual influences on academic
dishonesty: A multicampus investigation. Research in Higher Education, 38(3), 379-396.
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 50"
McCabe, D. K., Treviño, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (1999) Academic integrity in honor code
and non-honor code environments: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Higher
Education, 70(2), 211-234.
McCabe, D. L., Treviño, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2001). Cheating in academic institutions: A
decade of research. Ethics and Behavior, 11(3), 219-232.
McCabe, D. L., Treviño, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2002). Honor codes and other contextual
influences on academic integrity: A replication and extension to modified honor code
settings. Research in Higher Education, 43(3), 357-378.
Morrongiello, B. A., Mark, L. (2008). “Practice what you preach”: Induced hypocrisy as an
intervention strategy to reduce children’s intentions to risk take on playgrounds. Journal
of Pediatric Psychology, 33(10), 1117-1128.
Newstead, S. E., Franklyn-Stokes, A., & Armstead, P. (1996). Individual differences in student
cheating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(2), 229-241.
Roig, M., & Marks, A. (2006). Attitudes toward cheating before and after the implementation of
a modified honor code: A case study. Ethics and Behavior, 16(2), 163-171.
Satterlee, A. G. (2002). Academic dishonesty among students: Consequences and interventions.
2-11.
Schumacher, J. A., & Slep, A. M. S. (2004). Attitudes and dating aggression: A cognitive
dissonance approach. Prevention Science, 5(4), 231-243.
Silverman, I., Shulman, A. D., & Wiesenthal, D. L. (1970). Effects of deceiving and debriefing
psychological subjects on performance in later experiments. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 14(3), 203-212.
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 51"
Simon, L., Greenberg, J., & Brehm, J. (1995). Trivialization: The forgotten mode of dissonance
reduction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(2), 247-260.
Singhal, A. C. (1982). Factors in students’ dishonesty. Psychological Reports, 51, 775-780.
Stets, J. E., & Carter, M. J. (2011). The moral self: Applying identity theory. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 74(2), 192-215.
Stice, E., Shaw, H., Becker, C. B., & Rohde, P. (2008). Dissonance-based intervention for the
prevention of eating disorders: Using persuasion principles to promote health. Prevention
Science, 9(2), 114-128.
Stone, J., & Fernandez, N. C. (2008). To practice what we preach: The use of hypocrisy and
cognitive dissonance to motivate behavior change. Social and Personality Psychology
Compass, 2(2), 1024-1051.
Stone, J., Aronson, E., Crain, A., Winslow, M., & Fried, C. (1994). Inducing hypocrisy as a
means of encouraging young adults to use condoms. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 20(1), 116-128.
Stricker, L. J., Messick, S., & Jackson, D. N. (1967). Suspicion of deception: Implications for
conformity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5(4), 379-389.
Stryker, S., & Burke, P. J. (2000). The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 63(4), 284-297.
Sweeney, J. C., Hausknecht, D., & Soutar, G. N. (2000). Cognitive dissonance after purchase: A
multidimensional scale. Psychology and Marketing, 17(5), 369-385.
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good
adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of
Personality, 72(2), 271-322.
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 52"
Tryon, W. W., & Misurell, J. R. (2008). Dissonance induction and reduction: A possible
principle and connectionist mechanism for why therapies are effective. Clinical
Psychology Review, 28(8), 1297-1309.
Viding, E., Blair, R. J. R., Moffitt, T., & Plomin, R. (2005). Evidence for a substantial genetic
risk for psychopathy in 7-year-olds. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46(6),
592-597.
Vinski, E. J., & Tryon, G. S. (2009). Study of a cognitive dissonance intervention to address high
school students' cheating attitudes and behaviors. Ethics and Behavior, 19(3), 218-226.
Whitley, Jr., B. E. (1998). Factors associated with cheating among college students: A review.
Research in Higher Education, 39(3), 235-274.
Wright, J. C., & Kelly, R. (1974). Cheating: Student/faculty views and responsibilities.
Improving College and University Teaching, 22(1), 31-34.

DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 53#
Tables

Table 1
#
Baseline Demographics and Personality Characteristics of the Sample
Total
(n=85)
One-Part
Dissonance
(n=33)
Two-Part
Dissonance
(n=26)
Control
(n=26)
F
χ
2

p
Gender, n (%) - 2.79 .25
Female 59 (69.4) 20 (60.6) 18 (69.2) 21 (80.8) - - -
Male 26 (30.6) 13 (39.4) 8 (30.8) 5 (19.2) - - -
Ethnicity, n (%) - 3.64 .46
Asian 31 (36.5) 15 (45.5) 10 (38.5) 6 (23.1) - - -
White 27 (31.8) 8 (24.2) 9 (34.6) 10 (38.5) - - -
Other 27 (31.8) 10 (30.3) 10 (38.5) 10 (38.5) - - -
Year, n (%) - .46 .79
Lowerclassmen 56 (66.7) 23 (69.7) 16 (61.5) 17 (68.0) - - -
Upperclassmen 28 (33.3) 10 (30.3) 10 (38.5) 8 (32.0) - - -
GPA, mean (S.D.) 3.42 (.38) 3.47 (.40) 3.36 (.38) 3.41 (.38) .48 - .62
Academic Dishonesty, mean (S.D.) 35.91 (4.25) 36.82 (5.42) 34.50 (2.52) 36.15 (3.68) 2.29 - .11
CU Traits, mean (S.D.) 19.94 (7.58) 19.61 (6.85) 21.50 (9.51) 18.81 (6.21) .87 - .42
Self-Control, mean (S.D.) 3.30 (.76) 3.31 (.79) 3.31 (.83) 3.27 (.69) .02 - .98
Five-Factor Variables - - -
Extraversion, mean (S.D.) 8.55 (3.57) 8.42 (3.71) 8.31 (3.98) 8.96 (3.01) .25 - .78
Agreeableness, mean (S.D.) 10.47 (2.32) 10.52 (2.28) 9.92 (2.70) 10.96 (1.89) 1.33 - .27
Conscientiousness, mean (S.D.) 11.47 (2.66) 11.55 (2.60) 11.73 (2.91) 11.12 (2.54) .36 - .70
Emotional Stability, mean (S.D.) 8.76 (3.25) 8.67 (3.50) 8.31 (2.94) 9.35 (3.27) .68 - .51
Openness to Experience, mean (S.D.) 10.45 (2.34) 10.30 (2.10) 10.00 (2.59) 11.08 (2.33) 1.49 - .23
Note. GPA = grade point average. CU = callous-unemotional. S.D. = standard deviation.
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 54#
Table 2
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
Cheating Rates on Matrix Task by Condition
Total
(n=84)
One-Part
(n=32)
Two-Part
(n=26)
Control
(n=26)
χ
2

p w
Cheating by Overreporting # of Matrices Completed, n (%) 5 (6.0) 2 (6.3) 1 (3.8) 2 (7.7) - - -
Cheating by Overreporting # of Matrices Completed
Correctly, n (%)
33 (39.3) 14 (43.8) 9 (34.6) 10 (38.5) .51 .77 .08
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 55#
Table 3

Regression Results for Categorical
Moderators on Overreporting # of
Matrices Completed Correctly

χ
2

df p R
2

Gender 1.22 4 .88 .02
Year 9.43 4 .05† .15
Ethnicity 3.22 5 .67 .05
† denotes effects that are marginally significant
at the p<.10 level.

DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 56#
Table 4

Logistic Regression Results for Year Moderating the Effect of Condition on
Overreporting # of Matrices Completed Correctly
B S.E. Wald df p Odds Ratio
Condition 5.31 2 .07†
Condition (1) -4.30 1.94 4.95 1 .03* .01
Condition (2) -2.29 1.03 4.94 1 .03* .10
Year -2.47 1.39 3.17 1 .08† .09
Condition x Year -1.80 .79 5.24 1 .02* .17
Constant 8.11 3.80 4.55 1 .03* 3326.41
Note. Condition (1) contrast variable was dummy coded, 0=Control, 1=One-Part
Dissonance. Condition (2) contrast variable was dummy coded 0=Control, 1=Two-Part
Dissonance.
† denotes effects that are marginally significant at the p<.10 level.
* denotes effects that are significant at the p<.05 level.

DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 57#
Table 5

Overreporting # of Matrices Completed Correctly by Condition and Year
One-Part Two-Part Control
χ
2

p w
Lowerclassmen 1.25 .54 .15
Cheating by overreporting # of matrices completed correctly, n (%) 8 (36.4) 8 (50.0) 9 (52.9) - - -
Total n 22 16 17 - - -
Upperclassmen 7.54 .02* .52
Cheating by overreporting # of matrices completed correctly, n (%) 6 (60.0) 1 (10.0) 1 (12.5) - - -
Total n 10 10 8 - - -
* denotes effects that are significant at the p<.05 level.

#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#

DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 58#
Table 6

Die Task Cheating by Condition
Total
(n=85)
One-Part
(n=33)
Two-Part
(n=26)
Control
(n=26)
F p f
High Rolls, mean (S.D.) 20.54 (3.92) 21.21 (4.98) 20.42 (2.40) 19.81 (3.60) .95 .39 .15
Die Payout, mean (S.D.) 1.59 (.64) 1.76
a, b
(.62)

1.38
a
(.64)

1.58 (.64) 2.53 .09† .24
a
Post hoc Tukey testing indicated that the difference in payout between the one-part dissonance and the two-part dissonance condition was
marginally significant, p=.07, d=.59.
b
A one-sample t-test indicated that the payout of the one-part dissonance group differed significantly from $1.40, the average payout
expected by chance, p<.01, d=.58.
† denotes effects that are marginally significant at the p<.10 level.
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 59#
Table 7

ANOVA Results for Categorical Moderators on Die Task
Cheating
Outcome Moderator F df p f
High Rolls
Gender 1.52 2, 84 .22 .19
Year 1.92 2, 84 .15 .21
Ethnicity 2.43 4, 84 .06† .34
Die Payout
Gender .18 2, 84 .83 .07
Year .85 2, 84 .43 .14
Ethnicity .59 4, 84 .67 .17
† denotes effects that are marginally significant at the p<.10 level.

#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 60#
Table 8

High Rolls by Condition by Ethnicity
One-Part Two-Part Control F p f
Asian 3.32 .05† .46
High Rolls, mean (S.D.) 23.73
a, b
(4.80) 19.80
a
(2.10) 21.00 (3.35) - - -
n 15 10 6 - - -
White 1.91 .17 .38
High Rolls, mean (S.D.) 18.00 (3.59) 21.22 (2.64) 19.50 (3.84) - - -
n 8 9 10 - - -
Other .12 .89 .10
High Rolls, mean (S.D.) 20.00 (4.57) 20.29 (2.56) 19.40 (3.72) - - -
n 10 7 10 - - -
a
Post hoc Tukey testing indicated that the difference in high rolls between the one-part dissonance and the two-part
dissonance condition for Asian participants was marginally significant, p=.07, d=.59.
b
A one-sample t-test indicated that the number of high rolls in the one-part dissonance group differed significantly from 20,
the mean high rolls expected by chance, p=.02, d=.47.
† denotes effects that are marginally significant at the p<.10 level.

DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 61#
Table 9

Regression Results for Continuous Moderators on Die Task Cheating
Outcome Moderator F df p f
2
High Rolls
GPA 1.01 3, 79 .39 .04
Academic Dishonesty .77 3, 84 .51 .03
CU Traits .74 3, 84 .53 .03
Self-Control .39 3, 72 .76 .02
Extraversion .69 3, 84 .56 .03
Agreeableness 1.13 3, 84 .34 .04
Conscientiousness .98 3, 84 .41 .04
Emotional Stability .72 3, 84 .54 .03
Openness to Experience .95 3, 84 .42 .04
Die Payout
GPA 1.75 3, 79 .16 .07
Academic Dishonesty 4.10 3, 84 .01* .15
CU Traits .60 3, 84 .62 .02
Self-Control 1.36 3, 72 .26 .06
Extraversion 1.73 3, 84 .17 .06
Agreeableness .43 3, 84 .73 .02
Conscientiousness 1.26 3, 84 .29 .05
Emotional Stability 1.53 3, 84 .21 .06
Openness to Experience 1.02 3, 84 .39 .04
* denotes effects that are significant at the p<.05 level.

DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 62#
Table 10

Regression Results for Academic Dishonesty Moderating the Effect of Condition
on Die Payout
B S.E. β t p
Constant 1.58 .07 23.77 <.01*
Condition -.05 .07 -.08 -.81 .42
Academic Dishonesty .14 .07 .22 1.95 .06†
Condition x Academic Dishonesty -.12 .07 -.20 -1.76 .08†
† denotes effects that are marginally significant at the p<.10 level.
* denotes effects that are significant at the p<.05 level.

DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 63#
Table 11

Die Payout by Condition by Academic Dishonesty Level
One-Part Two-Part Control F p f
Low Academic Dishonesty .67 .52 .21
Die Payout, mean (S.D.) 1.27 (.56) 1.35 (.68) 1.60 (.52) - - -
n 11 11 7 - - -
Moderate Academic Dishonesty 2.15 .14 .40
Die Payout, mean (S.D.) 2.00 (.43) 1.40 (.60) 1.69 (.74) - - -
n 8 10 9 - - -
High Academic Dishonesty 2.57 <.10† .42
Die Payout, mean (S.D.) 2.00
a
(.54) 1.44 (.78) 1.48 (.68) - - -
n 14 5 10 - - -
a
A one-sample t-test indicated that the payout in the one-part dissonance condition for those high on academic dishonesty
differed significantly from $1.40, the mean payout expected by chance, p<.01, d=1.11.
† denotes effects that are marginally significant at the p<.10 level.

DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 64#
Figure Captions
Figure 1. Sample matrix from matrix task
Figure 2. Year in school moderates effect of condition on cheating by overreporting the number
of matrices completed correctly
Figure 3. Ethnicity moderates effect of condition on high rolls
Figure 4. Academic dishonesty level moderates effect of condition on die payout

DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 65#

Figure 1. Sample matrix from matrix task

DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 66#

Figure 2. Year in school moderates effect of condition on cheating by overreporting the number
of matrices completed correctly

0#
10#
20#
30#
40#
50#
60#
70#
Lowerclassmen Upperclassmen
% of Participants Who Cheated
One-Part
Two-Part
Control
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 67#

Figure 3. Ethnicity moderates effect of condition on high rolls

0
5
10
15
20
25
Asian White Other
High Rolls
One-Part
Two-Part
Control
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 68#

Figure 4. Academic dishonesty level moderates effect of condition on die payout
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Low AD Moderate AD High AD
Die Payout
One-Part
Two-Part
Control
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 69#
Appendix A: Academic Dishonesty Questionnaire
Please answer the following question honestly. Your response is confidential.

Have you cheated, in any form, in any of your academic classes during the past year?
Yes No

The following questionnaire will ask some questions about your academic history. All
information provided in the questionnaire is confidential, so please answer honestly.

Please indicate how many times you have engaged in the following behaviors during the last
month that you were enrolled in school:

a
1. I have paraphrased material from an external source without acknowledging that source.
none once twice 3+ times
a
2. I have invented data (e.g. entered nonexistent results into the database).
none once twice 3+ times
a
3. I have allowed my own coursework to be copied by another student.
none once twice 3+ times
a
4. I have fabricated a reference or a bibliography.
none once twice 3+ times
a
5. I have altered data (e.g. adjusted data to obtain a significant result).
none once twice 3+ times
b
6. I have turned in someone else’s answers for an assignment or homework exercise.
none once twice 3+ times
a
7. I have ensured that books or journal articles were unavailable to others in the library by
deliberately misshelving them or by tearing out the relevant article or chapter.
none once twice 3+ times
a
8. In a situation where students graded each others’ work, I have come to an agreement with
another student or students to mark each others’ work more generously than it merited.
none once twice 3+ times
a
9. I have submitted a piece of coursework as an individual piece of work when it was really
written jointly with another student.
none once twice 3+ times
a
10. I have done another student’s coursework for him or her.
none once twice 3+ times
a
11. I have copied from a neighbor during an examination.
none once twice 3+ times
a
12. I have lied about medical or other circumstances to get an extended deadline or exemption
from a piece of work.
none once twice 3+ times
a
13. I have taken unauthorized materials into an exam (e.g. a cheat sheet).
none once twice 3+ times
a
14. I have illicitly gained information in advance about the contents of an exam.
none once twice 3+ times
b
15. I have exaggerated a report of my participation in a team project when I did little or no
DISSONANCE INTERVENTION TARGETING CHEATING BEHAVIOR 70#
work.
none once twice 3+ times
a
16. I have submitted a major paper or project obtained from an outside source (e.g. from friends,
other students, or an online essay bank).
none once twice 3+ times
b
17. I have arranged with another student to give or receive answers during an exam.
none once twice 3+ times
b
18. I have compared answers with others during a quiz or exam.
none once twice 3+ times
a
19. I have attempted to obtain special considerations by offering or receiving favors (e.g.
bribery).
none once twice 3+ times
a
20. I have taken an exam for someone else.
none once twice 3+ times
a
21. I have had someone else take an exam for me.
none once twice 3+ times
b
22. I have signed for someone on an attendance sheet. or had someone sign for me
none once twice 3+ times
b
23. I have had someone sign for me on an attendance sheet.
none once twice 3+ times
c
24. I have used a text or notes on a take-home test when instructed not to do so.
none once twice 3+ times
c
25. I have turned in the same paper for two classes without instructor approval.
none once twice 3+ times
c
26. I have changed my grade by covert means (e.g. hacking, forgery, replacing exam answers).
none once twice 3+ times
d
27. I have copied text from Wikipedia and pasted it directly into a paper that I then turned in for
credit.
none once twice 3+ times
d
28. I have used external sources, such as the Internet or consulting an expert, in a case where the
assignment prohibited such usage.
none once twice 3+ times
d
29. I have tried to pass off an idea from an external source as my own.
none once twice 3+ times
d
30. I have copied a quotation from an external source without crediting that source.
none once twice 3+ times
d
31. I have used my smartphone to check an answer on the Internet or obtain the answer via text
message during an exam.
none once twice 3+ times

Note.
a
Items adapted from Newstead et al., 1996
b
Items adapted from Koljantic & Silva, 2002
c
Items adapted from Lucas & Friedrich, 2005

d
Items created for this study

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The efficacy of hypocrisy induction interventions has been supported for a promising array of target behaviors, ranging from condom use (Stone, Aronson, Crain, Winslow, & Fried, 1994) to water conservation (Dickerson, Thibodeau, Aronson, & Miller, 1992). This study represents two extensions of the literature on this type of dissonance intervention. First, it examined the efficacy of dissonance interventions targeting cheating behavior. Second, it tested the prototypical two-part dissonance intervention against a novel one-part dissonance intervention, which represents a potential methodological advance. Undergraduates at the University of Southern California were randomly assigned to either a one-part hypocrisy induction condition, a two-part hypocrisy induction condition, or a control condition, each of which involved writing a letter to a local high school student. Participants then took part in two laboratory exercises that contained built-in opportunities to cheat: a die task (Ariely, Garcia-Rada, Hornuf, & Mann, 2014) and a matrix task (Gino & Ariely, 2012). Overall, letter condition had a marginal effect on cheating outcomes for the die task: surprisingly, participants in the one-part dissonance condition showed greater cheating than those in the two-part dissonance and control conditions. Significant and marginal moderation effects were found as well

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Targeting sexism with cognitive dissonance

PDF

Internet-delivered eating disorder prevention: a randomized controlled trial of dissonance-based and cognitive-behavioral treatments

PDF

The successful African American Parenting (SAAP) Program: an evaluation of a culturally sensitive parenting intervention

PDF

Cultural influences on mental health stigma in Asian and European American college students

PDF

Social norms intervention to promote help-seeking with depressed Asian and European Americans: A pilot study

PDF

A "second chance" program for vulnerable young adults: a program evaluation and a randomized controlled trial of adjunctive motivational interviewing to improve retention

PDF

Reducing gang involvement through employment: a pilot intervention

PDF

A roadmap for changing student roadmaps: designing interventions that use future “me” to change academic outcomes

PDF

Assessing therapeutic change mechanisms in motivational interviewing using the articulated thoughts in simulated situations paradigm

PDF

Psychophysiological assessment of cognitive and affective responses for prediction of performance in arousal inducing virtual environments

PDF

The effects of acceptance and commitment therapy-based exercises on eating behaviors in a laboratory setting

PDF

Children's triggered displaced aggression

PDF

Popularity as a predictor of friendship affiliation in adolescence

PDF

Personality and culture revisited: Integrating the social cognitive approach to personality and the dynamic constructivist approach to culture

PDF

Children's use of social and visual perspective-taking in reference resolution

PDF

Zooming in on mindfulness and gaming: the application of a brief, standardized, zoom-based, mindfulness intervention on videogame play as compared to a treatment as usual approach

PDF

Do you see what I see? Personality and cognitive factors affecting theory of mind or perspective taking

PDF

A functional use of response time data in cognitive assessment

PDF

Assessing the psychological correlates of belief strength: contributing factors and role in behavior

PDF

Savoring the service: a mixed-methods study of Latine community health workers’ health promotion efforts

Asset Metadata

Creator Lewine, Gabrielle (author)

Core Title A dissonance-based intervention targeting cheating behavior in a university setting

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Psychology

Publication Date 07/06/2015

Defense Date 05/13/2015

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag academic dishonesty,cheating,cognitive dissonance,hypocrisy induction,intervention,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Huey, Stanley J., Jr. (committee chair), Oyserman, Daphna (committee member), Schwartz, David (committee member)

Creator Email gabrielle.lewine@gmail.com,lewine@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-585891

Unique identifier UC11299587

Identifier etd-LewineGabr-3546.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-585891 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-LewineGabr-3546.pdf

Dmrecord 585891

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Lewine, Gabrielle

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA