In testing the General Model of Dishonest Behavior, Mazar and Ariely discovered, when given financial incentive, people cheat enough to benefit but not enough to necessitate revision of their self-image. This may be due to an increased salience of a self-concept inconsistent with how the individuals perceive themselves, thereby creating dissonance by highlighting discrepancies between current actions and how people prefer to view themselves (i.e., positively). Research suggests that people do not take full advantage of the opportunity to increase their material gain from their dishonest behavior. Instead, people transgress just enough to benefit, but not so much that they have to revise their inherently moral self-concept. Thus, self-concept maintenance theory posits the cost-benefit analysis when deciding whether or not to engage in dishonest behavior includes the revision of self-concept. For Robin, the question becomes whether the benefits of the theft outweigh not only the potential consequences (e.g., fine, jail time) but also the aversive cost of negatively influencing his self-concept as an inherently honest person.
When confronted with a situation where his dishonest actions threaten his self-concept as an inherently good or moral person, Robin may experience the unpleasantness of ethical dissonance. Like cognitive dissonance, ethical dissonance is an aversive psychological state occurring when there is a disagreement between an individual’s cognitions, beliefs, attitudes, or actions; however, ethical dissonance differs from cognitive dissonance in several ways.
First, the dissonant behavioral misconduct threatens self-perceived goodness. In Robin’s case, stealing the medication classifies him as a thief, which challenges his self-concept as a good person. Second, definitions of right and wrong are prescribed by society, thereby attributes of goodness have both internal and external loci. In addition to the internal conflict of his actions and self-concept, Robin’s theft violates socially defined morality and goodness (i.e., stealing is bad). Finally, the consequences of ethical failure being exposed may be linked to tangible losses as well as negative affect. If Robin were to get caught and exposed as a thief, he could experience the tangible loss of money (e.g., fines) and/or time (e.g., jail) plus negative feelings of both failing and the conflicting immorality of his theft and moral self-concept. Combined, these three aspects threaten self-concept beyond both ethically neutral cognitive dissonance and ethically neutral threats to self-concept. 
When experiencing cognitive dissonance, individuals engage in the first method of dissonance reduction provided. For Robin, this dissonance reduction may occur via moral disengagement from the action, whereby he excuses himself from the theft in an attempt to rationalize his behavior. Were Robin to get caught, he would encounter multiple instances where he would face the decision to behave (dis)honestly. Of interest for this project would be Robin’s decisions whether to tell the truth when asked about his behavior, specifically when giving a statement under oath. The oath may make morality salient, which in turn decreases dishonest behavior in adults, particularly when coupled with an explicit reminder to behave honestly. What little research of the oath’s influence exists focuses primarily on children, though one study used adult participants. The findings from this literature are discussed in the following sections.
