Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32935281›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2021

Cheaters claim they knew the answers all along.

Matthew L Stanley, Alexandria R Stone, Elizabeth J Marsh

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Making moral principles suit yourself.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Matthew L StanleyDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University, 417 Chapel Drive, Durham, NC, 27708, USA. matthew.stanley@duke.edu.
Alexandria R StoneDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University, 417 Chapel Drive, Durham, NC, 27708, USA.
Elizabeth J MarshDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University, 417 Chapel Drive, Durham, NC, 27708, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cheating has become commonplace in academia and beyond. Yet, almost everyone views themselves favorably, believing that they are honest, trustworthy, and of high integrity. We investigate one possible explanation for this apparent discrepancy between people's actions and their favorable self-concepts: People who cheat on tests believe that they knew the answers all along. We found consistent correlational evidence across three studies that, for those particular cases in which participants likely cheated, they were more likely to report that they knew the answers all along. Experimentally, we then found that participants were more likely to later claim that they knew the answers all along after having the opportunity to cheat to find the correct answers - relative to exposure to the correct answers without the opportunity to cheat. These findings provide new insights into relationships between memory, metacognition, and the self-concept.

Indexed as

DeceptionSelf ConceptAdultFemaleHumansMaleMental RecallMetacognitionYoung AdultCheatingHindsight biasMemoryMetacognitionMoral psychology

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.