ProblemSet 1DanielleLongWesternWashington University           TargetArticleMead,N. L., Baumeister, R. F., Gino, F., Schweitzer, M.

E., & Ariely, D. (2009).Too tired to tell the truth: Self-control resource depletion and dishonesty. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,45(3), 594-597. doi: http://dx.doi.org.

Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot

Premium Partner
From $18.00 per page
4,8 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,80
Delivery
4,90
Support
4,70
Price
Recommended Service
From $13.90 per page
4,6 / 5
4,70
Writers Experience
4,70
Delivery
4,60
Support
4,60
Price
From $20.00 per page
4,5 / 5
4,80
Writers Experience
4,50
Delivery
4,40
Support
4,10
Price
* All Partners were chosen among 50+ writing services by our Customer Satisfaction Team

ezproxy.library.wwu.

edu/10.1016/j.jesp.

2009.02.004 In this study, theauthors examined the effects of ego depletion on self-control and honesty. Theauthors of this study asked what determines a person’s act of honesty ordishonesty when they can profit from cheating. Previous research found that wehave a resource for self-control, referred to as the “moral muscle”, which canbecome depleted with usage. Two experiments were performed. The first was asample of eighty-four undergraduate students, forty of which were female, thesecond was a sample of seventy-eight undergraduates, fifty of which werefemale. In experiment one, the participants were randomly assigned to fourdifferent groups, two of these groups were put into a depletion condition, andtwo were in a non-depletion condition.

As a second part to this experiment,each group completed a matrices task which was then experimenter-scored or self-scored.A depletion group and a non-depletion group was assigned to each type ofscoring. The experimenter-scored groups set a baseline for how many matrices aparticipant would typically complete.

The self-scored groups were given theopportunity to cheat by taking more quarters than they had truly earned whentotaling their completed matrices. For the second experiment, participantsparticipated in either a depletion task or a non-depletion task. The secondpart of this experiment took place when the participants were leaving the studyand were approached by another researcher. The participants completed a quizand were given the opportunity to cheat by choosing to use a bubble sheet thathad pre-filled answers, or they could use a blank bubble sheet which did notprovide the answers, receiving 10 cents for every correct answer. In bothexperiments, the groups that were assigned to the depletion task were morelikely to act dishonestly later to profit. The depleted participants whoself-scored their matrices rewarded themselves with more than double the amountof quarters than the experimenter scored participants, which confirms the researcher’shypothesis that depletion of self-control can lead to dishonesty.

Results weresimilar in the second experiment; depleted participants were more likely to actdishonestly when give the opportunity to profit from dishonest behavior. Afuture study could examine behaviors of depleted participants when there is noreward and they do not profit from dishonesty.             Research ArticleGino, F.

, Schweitzer, M. E., Mead, N. L., & Ariely, D.(2011).

Unable to resist temptation: How self-control depletion promotesunethical behavior. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 191-203. doi: http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.

library.wwu.edu/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.03.001 The authors of this studyperformed four studies to answer the question of how and why ethical and moralparticipants engage in unethical and dishonest behaviors.

They explore the partself-control plays in the act of ethical or unethical behaviors. In the firststudy had 100 university students, fifty-eight were male. They used randomassignment to assign participants to a depletion task, or non-depletion task,they then were given a problem-solving task in which they could cheat, andfinally, they were given a questionnaire. As the experimenters predicted, theparticipants assigned to the depletion group were more likely to be dishonestin regard to the problem-solving task. The second study consisted ofninety-seven students, fifty of which were male, and again they were randomlyassigned to a depletion or non-depletion condition. Participants then performeda problem-solving task in which they could cheat, a word completion task inwhich the experimenters could assess the presence or absence of morality, andfinally a questionnaire.

Once again, the depleted participants were more likelyto cheat on the problem-solving task. Also, the hypothesis for study two, thatdepletion will reduce moral awareness, was supported by the results of the wordcompletion task, which showed that the depleted participants came up with lessethically related words than the non-depleted participants. The third studyconsisted of sixty-five undergraduates, twenty-nine of which were male. Theresearchers predicted that unethical behaviors would increase with depletionmore in participants with low moral identity, but not in participants with highmoral identity.

They participated in either a depletion or non-depletion task,problem-solving task, word completion task, and finally filled out a 7-pointLikert scale to measure moral identity. Participants with low moral identitywho were in the depletion condition engaged in unethical behaviors, butparticipants with high moral identity in the depletion condition were notsignificantly engaged in unethical behaviors. The results supported theresearcher’s hypothesis. Finally, the fourth study consisted of ninety-twoundergraduate students, forty-eight of which were male. The researcher’spredicted that refraining from cheating and practicing self-control depletesthe participants moral muscle. Participants baseline measurement forself-control was found using an initial Stroop task, this was followed by anunrelated questionnaire, which was followed by a matrices task in which theyhad the opportunity to cheat.

After the matrices task they completed anotherStroop task. The participants who practiced self-control and refrained fromcheating on the matrices task, later did significantly worse on the followingStroop task, showing their self-control had been depleted. The resultssupported the researcher’s hypothesis. This study as a whole was extremelythorough and in depth.

This relates very closely to the target article not onlybecause it involves some of the same authors, but because it focused oncheating for personal gain, and depletion of the self-control resource.      Review ArticleMurdock, T. B.

, & Anderman, E. M. (2006). Motivationalperspectives on student cheating: Toward an integrated model of academicdishonesty.

Educational Psychologist, 41(3),129-145. doi: http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.

wwu.edu/10.1207/s15326985ep4103_1 The authors of this articlefocused on the topic of students and academic cheating, including the threequestions students may ask themselves prior to cheating; they ask what thepurpose of cheating is, consider if they can successfully cheat, and weigh thepotential cost of cheating. Surveys were done by students to assess thelikelihood of cheating. The primary reason given for cheating was to raise agrade. Students who viewed education as mandatory for a successful future,oppose to students who viewed education as an opportunity for personaldevelopment, were 40% more likely to cheat. A student’s goal orientationdetermines the likelihood of their cheating as well as how harshly they judgeothers who have cheated. This was shown in an experiment where participantsread a story of someone cheating and decided on an appropriate punishment forthe culprit.

When a student is considering if they can successfully cheat ornot, their self-efficacy comes into play as well as the portrayed competence ofthe instructor. On a task in which a student feels they have low efficacy theyare more likely too cheat. When students are spaced farther apart for testing,less cheating occurs, but having multiple versions of the test did not resultin any less cheating than only using one version of the test. In conclusion,there are many reasons a student may cheat; raise a grade, to appear competentcompared to other students, the student feels they have low self-efficacy on acertain task, and so on.

This info is hard to generalize to all students, inall situations. There is not just one set of characteristics that makes astudent cheat, and a cheating student may not cheat on every task. When thecost of cheating is high, the likelihood of cheating lowers. For futureresearch, it would be beneficial to measure these variables in the real world.Experiments and surveys can provide less accurate info than observing anunknowing subject. Also, a longitudinal study would be beneficial, to study howstudents cheating habits may change over time. This relates to the topicarticle because it focuses on cheating and why a person might cheat and actdishonestly or unethically. This focus is interesting because the participantsare not receiving a monetary benefit, although they receive benefits in other forms.

             Citation ArticleCantarero, K., & Van Tilburg, W. A. P. (2014). Too tired totaint the truth: Ego-depletion reduces other-benefiting dishonesty. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(7),743-747.

doi: http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.

library.wwu.edu/10.1002/ejsp.2065 The researchers in this study acknowledgethe previous work that showed ego-depletion increases unethical behaviors, anddecided to put a twist on this focus. The researchers ask if ego-depletion willdecrease dishonesty in a situation where others would benefit from yourdishonesty, oppose to previous research in which dishonesty increased forself-benefit.

The study consisted of 153 undergraduate students, fifty of whichwere men. Participants were randomly assigned into two groups, eitherego-depletion or control. Participants filled out a self-control questionnaireto get a baseline of individual differences of self-control. Participants werethen shown a drawing done by a child and made several judgements about it, suchas quality, if they like it, how old they think the artist is, etc. Participantsthen performed an ego-depletion task. Finally, they were told the age of thechild and were asked to write down what they would say to the child about theirdrawing, measuring the similarities in what they said before and after thedepletion task. The researchers hypothesized that after the depletion taskparticipants would be less likely to respond to the picture dishonestly tobenefit others.

In other words, a depleted participant will not lie to avoidinghurting the child’s feelings, as they would if they responded honestly. Theresults showed that the non-depleted participants provided more positivefeedback on the drawing than the depleted participants, but the results werenot very significant. Overall, ego-depletion did result in less action to benefitother’s, compared to the significant self-benefitting behavior observed inother research.

This is closely related to the target article because itfocuses on the effects of ego-depletion and self-control. This was a veryinteresting take on the topic. For future research the participants could judgethe work or writing of an adult, oppose to that of a child. This may providedifferent results because an adult is less inclined to help benefit anotheradult oppose to benefiting a child.