A Replication of Mazar et Al’s Cheating Studies Performed on High

School Students
Diego Olaya
Peak to Peak Charter School

The experiment aimed to attempt to replicate the results of an experiment performed by Mazar et
al. in a 2008 paper in a population of high school students. Participants were asked to complete
a mathematical task and self-report scores in exchange for a reward of candy dependent on
the score they reported. Analysis of data implies there was no cheating in either of the two
experimental conditions, a result which does not align with Mazar. Possible explanations for this
discrepancy include errors introduced from issues with scheduling around the school’s schedule
as well as the possibility that candy is not a sufficient motivator to inspire cheating from high
school students.

Introduction and Background expectations of punishment might affect levels of dishonesty.

The question of why people cheat is an interesting and im-
portant question to answer and investigate, as dishonesty has
serious practical implications outside of a laboratory setting.
Because of this clear importance, several studies focusing on
finding conditions under which people increase or decrease
their cheating have been done. These experiments have fo-
cused on various factors such as the presence of an honor
code, the likelihood of being caught, and perceptions of peers’
behavior, among others.
A study done in 1993 by Goldstone and Chin focused on
subjects’ dishonesty when reporting copies on the depart-
ment copier. The experiment was meant to investigate the
frequency and degree of dishonest behavior by users of a
university copier when they had to self-report the number of
copies they made and pay for each one. The experimenters
observed the behavior of patrons for two weeks and noted
the size of the copy job, who the job was charged to, and the
discrepancy between the actual and reported number of copies.
They found that for small jobs, patrons were more likely to not
report the job at all, but they under-reported less copies. For
large jobs, it was very unlikely that a patron would fail to re-
port the job, but under-reporting of copies was more frequent
and more severe (Goldstone and Chin, 1993). The results of
this study make sense when considered under the framework
of self-concept maintenance suggested by Mazar in a 2008
paper detailing participants behavior in a series of different
experiments. Each experiment manipulated the possibility
of the participants to cheat during a task, the goal being to
measure the magnitude of cheating as well as differences in
cheating behavior related to the manipulations in each test.
The results support their theory that people will cheat only to a
level that allows them to keep their perceptions of themselves
as good people (Mazar, Amir, and Ariely, 2008).
Other studies have focused on how the influence of peers or
One 2008 paper examined the attitudes of college students
towards cheating, specifically their perceptions of what con-
stitutes cheating, how often their peers cheat, and how likely
it is they will be caught. The study also asked participants
their opinions on the appropriate punishment for each action.
The study found that students view different types of cheating
very differently, with cheating on a paper considered far more
seriously than cheating on homework or on tests. More inter-
estingly, some students said that some behaviors should not be
punished at all. The findings show that students often have dif-
ferent perceptions of what should be considered cheating than
their instructors (Megehee and Spake, 2008). The influence
of peers’ behavior on the cheating of others was also explored
by Gino in a paper detailing the results of two experiments
focusing on how other people’s behavior affected participants’
cheating. In the first experiment, the experimenters had a
confederate cheat flagrantly by finishing the given task in
an impossible amount of time with no consequence. If the
confederate was identified by the participants as an in-group
member, participants’ cheating increased; the opposite effect
was seen if the confederate was identified as an out-group
member. For the second experiment, the experimenters had
the confederate raise the possibility of cheating but not cheat
himself. In this scenario, cheating went down. The results
imply that individuals’ cheating is influenced by others (Gino,
Ayal, and Ariely, 2009).
Other studies have examined the effects of an honor code
on student attitudes towards cheating behavior, as in a case
study published by Roig focusing on the students’ attitudes
towards cheating before and after the implementation of an
honor code. The experimenters examined the attitudes of
participants using an Attitudes Towards Cheating question-
naire, asking them to submit their own attitudes and what
they thought were the attitudes of their professors. The study
found no statistically significant difference in the attitudes
2 DIEGO OLAYA
of participants one semester prior to the honor code being
implemented when compared to the semester immediately
afterwards. The experimenters say that it is possible they did
not give enough time for the school to promote the honor code,
or that the lack of a difference was due to students being al-
ready aware that an honor code was coming (Roig and Marks,
2006). These results appear to contradict results reported
by Mazar where the presence of an honor code reminder is
reported to decrease cheating among students. The reason for
this discrepancy could be due to some of the reasons listed
above, or because the introduction of an honor code results
in a change in behavior that is not consciously recognized by
the participants.
Theoretical Propositions and Hypothesis
The primary question being investigated is how an honor
code reminder affects students’ likelihood to be dishonest
when reporting scores for a reward. This is a replication of
one of six experiments detailed in Mazar et al.’s 2008 paper
designed to test the influence of various situational factors on
participants’ dishonesty. The introduction of an honor code is
designed to call to mind participants’ moral values and draw
their attention to their moral standard with the intention of
reducing categorization malleability, or participants’ ability
to re-frame dishonest actions in a more benign or honest light
(Mazar et al., 2008). Using the framework of self-concept
maintenance proposed in the paper, the honor code reminder
should reduce cheating compared to a condition where there
is no honor code reminder but participants can still cheat.
Method
Population
The population studied was a group of high school students
from Peak to Peak Charter School, a small college prepara-
tory K-12 located in Boulder County, CO. The students were
randomly assigned to test conditions and randomly selected
as participants. The students were pulled from their Access
classes to participate in the study. Each experimental condi-
tion consisted of forty students from all grades of the high
school.
Procedure
Participants entered the room and were told to sit down at
an empty desk. The table in front of them had a test sheet
and answer sheet face down on it. Participants were told to
not turn the sheets of paper over. Once seated, all participants
were told to visit a Google Form containing an informed
consent outlining the task they were about to complete and
informing them that they were allowed to leave the experiment
at any point. If they did not sign, they were dismissed from
the experiment. Each test sheet was identical and contained
twenty matrices of twelve numbers each. Participants were
told to find the two numbers per matrix that added up to ten.
They were given five minutes, which was not enough time
to finish, to do so. Participants were also told they would
receive a reward of one piece of candy for each correctly
solved matrix before beginning the task. This experimental
setup mirrors Mazar et al.’s setup. The matrix task was chosen
because the answers are unambiguously wrong or right, such
that participants’ scores are not affected by potential hindsight
bias (Mazar et al., 2008).
In the control condition, the participants wrote how many
questions they got correct on the answer sheet and brought
both the test sheet and the answer sheet to the experimenter,
who was sitting at a table at the front of the room. The experi-
menter checked their tests and confirmed the number correct
on their answer sheet. He then gave the participants a reward
commensurate to the number answered correct. There was no
opportunity to cheat in this condition.
In the shredder condition, participants completed the ma-
trix task as in the control condition. The only difference is
that at the end of the matrix task and after the participants had
transferred the number correct onto the answer sheet, they
shredded their test sheets and handed the answer sheet to the
experimenter, who gave them a reward based on the number
they reported correct on their answer sheet. The experimenter
did not question or react to the reported score in any way
except to give the participant their reward.
The shredder + honor code condition was meant to test the
effect of a moral reminder on the students’ level of cheating.
In this case, the moral reminder is an honor code statement.
The matrix task was the same as in the other conditions except
that at the top of the test sheet the following statement was
printed: "I understand that this activity falls under the Peak to
Peak Honor Code, and I agree to abide by its principles while
completing this task." The students were instructed to print
and sign their name beneath the statement before beginning
the matrix task. Once they finished the task, they shredded
the test and presented the experimenter with the answer sheet
as in the shredder condition.
At the conclusion of the experiment and before participants
were dismissed, they were told to complete a second Google
Form containing a debriefing, which they were asked to sign.
After this form was complete, participants were told they
could leave.
Results
Notes on Method and Experiment Implementation
There were several complications in executing the experi-
ment that are worth mentioning before presenting the data, as
they affected the sample size of each condition and have the
potential to have affected the ultimate results.
First of all, while 40 students from all levels of the school
were selected at random to participate in experimentation,
 PEAK TO PEAK CHARTER SCHOOL
other activities during the time of the experiment, such as SAT
preparation and grade-level specific activities, meant that not
everyone in the original sample showed up to participate. In
some cases, none of the students selected from specific rooms
came, dramatically reducing sample size in some cases.
Another complication that affected sample size was timing
difficulties and delays in the testing schedule caused by par-
ticipants not arriving on time, often trickling in over a period
of five minutes after the scheduled start of the experiment.
This meant that some participants heard portions of the script
repeated multiple times. This staggered entry of participants
led to a somewhat hectic general atmosphere due to the delays
and repetition of instructions, which could have certainly
affected the results. Another consequence of the staggered
entry and associated delays were a mixing of the subjects
selected for the different experimental conditions, affecting
the sizes of each. Table 1 shows the sample sizes for each
experimental condition.
Condition Sample Size
Control 18
Shredder 22
Honor Code 12
Table 1: Experimental Condition Sample Sizes
Lastly, the honor code condition had to be completed at
a time separate from the other two conditions, meaning that
the sample for the honor code condition was selected from
volunteers from the available study halls and teaching assis-
tants during the time of experimentation. This sample, while
it did include members from various grade levels, was not
randomly selected.
Difficulties with Informed Consent and Debriefing
While the majority of subjects complied with experimental
procedure and completed an informed consent and debrief-
ing online as instructed, a few participants either forgot or
neglected to complete this paperwork at the links provided
when instructed to do so. Because the informed consent and
debriefings were to be done online, there was no easy way
to verify if everyone had completed the debriefing until after
the trial was complete. Normally, the course of action would
be to not use the data of the people who failed to sign the
paperwork, but due to the anonymous nature of the data, it
was not possible to do so.
Adding to the difficulties of ensuring that everyone submit-
ted the informed consent and the debriefing was the tendency
of participants to occasionally arrive late, forcing the experi-
menter to repeat the instruction to fill out the informed consent.
If the participants felt a time pressure to catch up to the rest
of the group quickly, they may have neglected to fill out the
3
requisite documentation. One of the experimental conditions
ended at the beginning of the students’ lunch period, which
meant that some of them left immediately after receiving
their reward and before receiving instructions to complete the
debriefing.
Efforts were made to contact participants afterwards to
request that they fill out documentation. The participants con-
tacted were identified to be missing either informed consent
or debriefing by comparing the lists of names on the responses
and identifying individuals that had not submitted both pieces
of documentation. Even after contacting them, however, some
participants did not complete the forms.
Data and Analysis
The data collected from the three conditions showed no
statistical evidence of cheating in any condition. The program
R-Studio was used for data analysis. Table 2 shows a summary
of important quantities for each experimental condition.
Control Shredder Honor Code
Mean 5.22 4.55 5.50
Std. Deviation 2.69 3.22 2.68
Std. Error 0.634 0.686 0.774
Table 2: Summary of Data
A 95% confidence interval test using these data showed that
there was no statistically significant difference between the
conditions with respect to the number of questions answered
correctly. This lack of a difference implies that there was no
cheating during the experiment, or at least at levels so low
as to be undetectable. A graphical representation illustrating
the lack of a statistically significant difference between the
two groups is shown in figure 1. The error bars have a size
of ± twice the standard error. Performing an unpaired t-test
Figure 1: Mean Scores by Test Condition
between the control condition and the other experimental con-
4 DIEGO OLAYA
ditions confirms the lack of a significant difference implied
on the graph in figure 1.
Discussion
The results from Mazar et al.’s paper note two main find-
ings. First, that there was cheating in both the shredder condi-
tion and, to a lesser extent, the honor code condition. Second,
that the level of cheating in the honor code condition was
significantly lower than the level of cheating in the shredder
condition. Neither result was observed in this experiment;
there was no evidence of cheating by any participant.
There are a few key differences in the experimental setup
between Mazar and this paper. The first is that, due to budget
constraints, the reward for a correct answer was not money
but candy. While this might certainly motivate the students
to do well, it is very possible that candy was not a sufficient
motivator to get the students to consider cheating on the task.
A second difference is that many of the students knew the
experimenter by name if not personally. This connection to
the experimenter could change the behavior of participants
by making cheating feel more like a betrayal than if the ex-
perimenter was a complete stranger. Another possibility is
that the experiment was conducted with school authority fig-
ures present. This could not be avoided, as the space was
where many of these figures had their offices. However, their
presence could have certainly dissuaded the students from
cheating.
A possible concern affecting test-retest reliability is men-
tioned in "Notes on Method and Experiment Implementation"
when discussing the slightly hectic nature of the trials. Be-
cause of these complications, it is very possible that the ex-
perimental procedure varied between trials in uncontrolled
ways, leading to different experiences in different conditions.
This complication is compounded by the fact that only one
session of each experimental condition was run due to time
constraints.
It is unclear whether the results of this experiment can
be generalized to all high school students or to students in
general and thus have external validity. Because of the fact
that many of the participants knew the experimenter, their
behavior could have been altered in ways that are not gen-
eralizable to a broader population. Another concern has to
do with the possibility that the small sample size may have
compromised content validity. This issue, at least, has an
easy solution; future replication studies with more time to
experiment and larger sample sizes for each condition.
As mentioned in the introduction, studies on why individu-
als cheat have great practical potential, and making sure that
results from previous papers can be replicated is an important
part of the scientific process. While the results of this paper
do not agree with those published in Mazar’s work, it is likely
reasonable to assume that the concerns with execution men-
tioned in this paper make this experiment a poor gauge by
which to assess the validity of Mazar’s results. Further work
would involve a refinement of the procedure for experimental
sessions and a longer experimental period to help minimize
errors introduced due to time pressure. Lastly, it would be
advisable to seek sufficient funds to make the participants’
reward money, as in Mazar, to ensure the highest possible
degree of similarity between the two experiments.
References
Gino, F., Ayal, S., & Ariely, D. (2009). Contagion and differ-
entiation in unethical behavior: The effect of one bad
apple on the barrel. Psychological Science, 20, 393–
398.
Goldstone, R. L. & Chin, C. (1993). Dishonesty in self-report
of copies made: Moral relativity and the copy machine.
Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 14, 19–32.
Mazar, N., Amir, O., & Ariely, D. (2008, December). The
dishonesty of honest people: A theory of self-concept
maintenance. Journal of Marketing Research, 45, 633–
644.
Megehee, C. M. & Spake, D. F. (2008). The impact of per-
cieved peer behavior, probable detection, and punish-
ment severity on student cheating behavior. Marketing
Education Review, 18, 5–19.
R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for
statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Com-
puting. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from https://www.R-
project.org/
Roig, M. & Marks, A. (2006). Attitudes toward cheating be-
fore and after the implementation of a modified honor
code: A case study. Ethics and Behavior, 16, 163–171.