Open Access

Tanja M. Fritz, Hernán González Cruz, Anja S. Göritz, Stefan Janke, Martin Daumiller

• Relating students’ achievement goals to their engagement in academic dishonesty has been a fruitful research avenue for understanding the motivational underpinnings of cheating behavior in academia. However, most study results are grounded in self-reported measures of academic dishonesty, and heterogeneous findings – particularly regarding the links between performance goals and academic dishonesty – warrant an experimental investigation into the conditions influencing these effects. Through three experiments, we examined the effects and interactions of performance goals (appearance-approach) and performance evaluation standards (result-based vs. process-based) on cheating behaviors in an academic aptitude test. In Study 1 (pilot, N = 146), we tested the paradigm and developed suitable task types. In preregistered Study 2 (N = 238), university students completed a supposed academic aptitude test in the lab using a 2 (appearance goal induction vs. no induction) × 2 (result-based vs.Relating students’ achievement goals to their engagement in academic dishonesty has been a fruitful research avenue for understanding the motivational underpinnings of cheating behavior in academia. However, most study results are grounded in self-reported measures of academic dishonesty, and heterogeneous findings – particularly regarding the links between performance goals and academic dishonesty – warrant an experimental investigation into the conditions influencing these effects. Through three experiments, we examined the effects and interactions of performance goals (appearance-approach) and performance evaluation standards (result-based vs. process-based) on cheating behaviors in an academic aptitude test. In Study 1 (pilot, N = 146), we tested the paradigm and developed suitable task types. In preregistered Study 2 (N = 238), university students completed a supposed academic aptitude test in the lab using a 2 (appearance goal induction vs. no induction) × 2 (result-based vs. process-based evaluation) design, wherein cheating was measured by indicating having solved unsolvable tasks and using illicit means to solve knowledge questions. In preregistered Study 3 (N = 253), we conducted a conceptual replication of Study 2 in an online setting. Taken together, the effects of goals and evaluation standards were inconsistent and differed between the type of cheating behavior and context. Methodological implications are discussed with respect to measures of cheating in both laboratory and online settings, while the practical implications focus on strategies to deter cheating through assessment modalities.…