Background and Goals:
Past research has investigated how people pursue goals and think about standards. In the present study, I aimed to expand our knowledge of how people think and act in the context of standards.
Many theoretical models of goals suggest that people will exert more effort when they are close to hitting a goal or standard because of the increased value of progress as the standard approaches.
In other words, progress should be worth most to a person when it means that they can achieve a standard. However, limited research has tested whether these perceptions of value manifest in changes in behavior, instead assumptions have been made that perceived value will influence behavior.
If standards drive perceptions of value, means to attain these standards may seem disproportionately valuable and lead to sacrifices in other goals.
In this study, I tested whether people would lie to report hitting a standard in a situation with low accountability because of the increased value of achievement.
Method:
- 199 undergrad participants informed they would be completing a word game that tests their ability to come up with creative solution to word puzzles and saw instructions.
- Told their scores would be determined by their ability to think creatively and provide words that others had not provided for the task in the past.
- Participants saw several examples of the game, where participants could enter up to 5 words as solutions to a 5 x 5 grid of letters and spaces by fitting the grid forward, backward, upward, or downward.
- Participants were then randomly assigned to see a standard/supposed “average” score or told to do their best.
- Completed 8 rounds of the word game with a 2-minute timer
- After completing all trials, participants saw as score of 237 presented, and told their score was in the bottom 20% of other players.
- Participants then clicked through to a follow up page that displayed an error, and told that their score should be presented, but to enter their score in the box if it was not present (all participants saw the error; M = 241.11, SD = 25.61).
Key Findings:
- Results indicated that 12.34% of the do-your-best condition reported an inflated score whereas 26.42% of the standard condition inflated their score. The observed frequencies were significantly different from the expected frequencies, χ2 = 5.61, p = .018, φ = .17.
- There was not a significant difference between the standard (M = 243.39, SD = 23.39) and do-your-best (M = 238.14, SD = 28.13) conditions on self-reported score, t(185) = -1.39, p = .165, d = -.21. However, this null finding was likely caused by a large majority of participants reporting the accurate score of 237.
Impact:
- This research expanded on implications of how people’s focus on standards may influence their behaviors.
- Participants who were told that they underperformed relative to a standard were more likely to lie when self-reporting their score on a word task. In a similar way, the drive produced by salient standards should shape how people think and act.
Personal takeaways:
- Sometimes the nature of how participants respond to a study may have implications for what analysis is best; in this case, because most participants ended up being honest, analyzing the data based on the mean response likely did not tell the full story.
- Measuring outcomes using several different strategies can help to create a more full picture of a phenomenon.
William Schiavone, PhD 