Study 1 attempts to parse out whether the differences Joseph et al. observed in truthful disclosure is driven by the language of the oath, the explicit commitment to be honest, and/or morality salience. Additionally, this project eliminates a confound in the methodology of Joseph et al.—a quasi-experimental design where all participants were induced to cheat—by utilizing an experimental design without the pro-social interaction with the confederate. In order to further investigate the basic psychological mechanism of the oath, this study will tease out the differences by comparing legal language to lay language to examine whether the legal language of the oath confers additional solemnity to the testimony beyond an active commitment to be honest. This study also tests whether the active commitment to tell the truth, regardless of the language, influences truthful disclosure differently than a passive morality reminder. Previous research suggests making a public commitment increases adults’ adherence to that commitment.
The dependent measures are rates of truthful disclosure—measured by whether or not the participant lies when questioned about cheating—and ethical dissonance—measured using the emotional affect scale. Also of interest are the changes in reports of self-concept and moral disengagement both after having the opportunity to cheat and lie.

 	After the participants finish with their answer sheet, they will throw their scrap paper in a recycling bin, and turn in their answer sheet to the experimenter who will then give them a questionnaire with the emotional affect scale, the self-esteem scale and the moral disengagement about cheating scale embedded among other questions. The experimenter will then leave the room, supposedly to give the participants privacy and get the appropriate amount of compensation, taking the scored answer sheet with him/her. After sufficient time has passed for the participants to complete the questionnaire, the experimenter will return to the participant explaining that the head researcher overseeing the project took a look at the answers, suspects cheating has occurred, and needs to take a statement in the office. 
The head researcher will tell the participants that the study is actually part of a larger study, and protocol dictates a statement must be taken anytime there is suspicion that something may be amiss. Participants in the Oath condition will swear that their statement is true prior to giving their statement. Like participants in the Oath condition, those in the Promise condition will also make an explicit, public commitment to be truthful without the legal language in the Oath condition. Participants in the Morality Reminder condition will be told that lying is bad and that they should be truthful while providing their statement. 
The elicitation from the participant of one the three oath types described above will occur either before or after the head researcher conducts a scripted interview that is identical in all conditions. For participants in the two No Oath conditions the head researcher will proceed directly to the scripted interview. All statements will be videotaped for coding and analysis. After the statements conclude, participants will answer another questionnaire containing the emotional affect scale, the self-esteem scale and the moral disengagement about lying scale before being debriefed and compensated the full $15.
