A series of logistic regressions will test whether ethical dissonance and which, if any, of the morality salience manipulations significantly influenced truthful disclosure. Logistic regression will be used to investigate whether any of the demographic information (i.e., age, race, sex) or condition statistically significantly influences participants’ decisions to cheat. A second logistic regression will also be used to test Hypotheses 2-3, investigating cheating as a predictor of ethical dissonance and moral disengagement. A third logistic regression will analyze Hypothesis 1, whether cheating or swearing to tell the truth influenced truthful disclosure, and which, if any, of the Oath conditions elicited the highest rate of truthful disclosure. Additionally, meditational analyses will investigate the roles of self-concept maintenance, ethical dissonance, and moral disengagement. A power analysis suggests a minimum of 230 participants is needed to detect a small effect size.
	People are generally selfish and will commit a moral transgression—like cheating—so long as the action results in some gain but does not require revision of the moral self. Even though lying is regarded as the most severe moral failure, it is common in everyday life. The most endorsed reasons for lying including protection or improvement of one’s social image, avoiding unpleasant encounters, and acquisition of resources from another. In other words, even though lying is viewed as immoral, people lie in order to preserve their self-image as well as to obtain and retain ill-gotten gains. Lippard’s research also suggests that the type of motivation behind a lie differs depending on the situation. For instance, a person lying to a friend about why they cannot attend a poetry slam may be less motivated to be believed than a person who is testifying under oath about their whereabouts at the time of an alleged offense.  
	As reviewed above, dissonance is an aversive psychological state, which people try to relieve. Since maintaining a state of dissonance is aversive, people may prefer a method of dissonance reduction—like telling the truth about the act which caused the dissonance—instead of compounding the dissonance by further inconsistent behavior—like lying. However, the preservation of self-image, avoidance of unpleasant encounters, and retention of benefits may be incentive enough for an individual to prolong, and even compound, a dissonant state. In order to investigate if this may be the case in a legal setting, Study 2 examines the effect of both the oath and motivation to be perceived as innocent as predictors of truthful disclosure.
	Using the same measures as Study 1, the main dependent measures are truthful disclosure—as measured by whether the participant lies or tells the truth when asked about the prior dishonest behavior—and ethical dissonance—measured using the emotional affect scale. Additional dependent measures—self-concept and moral disengagement about both cheating and lying—are assessed using the same scales as Study 1: the self-esteem scale, the moral disengagement about cheating scale, and the moral disengagement about lying scale. As a manipulation check, participants will also report how motivated they were to be perceived as innocent.


The procedure is the same as Study 1 from greeting and informed consent through the experimenter informing the participant that the head researcher would like to take a statement. Upon being brought to the head researcher’s office, the head researcher will manipulate motivation to be perceived as innocent prior to taking the statement. 
