Does the choice of an environment where cheating is possible lead to its escalation? We analyzed behavior of employees (N = 284) hired to perform a task online. In the manual reporting (MR), employees could overreport the number of hours worked. In the automatic reporting (AR), the hours were counted automatically, making cheating impossible. Two-thirds of the participants were given a chance to choose the reporting scheme, the rest were assigned to the MR directly. As the actual time spent on the task was tracked in all conditions, we were able to assess the degree of overreporting by employees in MR. Although we found that people in MR slightly overreported the hours worked, employees who chose MR did not overreport their hours more than those assigned to MR at random. Moreover, participants lower in honesty-humility were not more likely to choose MR; only those higher in emotionality were. The results show that even when enabled to cheat, online workers reported their hours worked honestly and the possibility for cheaters to select cheating enabling environments may not always lead to an increase of dishonesty in organizations.

选择可能作弊的环境是否会导致其升级？我们分析了员工的行为（N = 284) 受雇在线执行任务。在手动报告 (MR) 中，员工可能会多报工作小时数。在自动报告 (AR) 中，时间是自动计算的，因此作弊是不可能的。三分之二的参与者有机会选择报告方案，其余的直接分配给 MR。由于在所有条件下都跟踪了在任务上花费的实际时间，因此我们能够评估 MR 中员工过度报告的程度。虽然我们发现 MR 的人稍微多报了工作时间，但选择 MR 的员工并没有比随机分配给 MR 的员工多报他们的工作时间。此外，诚实-谦逊程度较低的参与者不太可能选择 MR；只有那些情绪更高的人。结果表明，即使允许作弊，