Can Theory-Informed Message Framing Drive Honest and Motivated Performance with Better Assessment Experiences in a Remote Assessment?

Abstract

Remote unproctored assessments increasingly use messaging interventions to reduce cheating, but existing approaches lack theoretical grounding, focus narrowly on cheating suppression while overlooking performance and experience, and treat cheating as binary rather than continuous. This study examines whether messages based on 15 psychological concepts from self-determination, cognitive dissonance, social norms, and self-efficacy theories can reduce cheating while preserving performance and experience. Through an expert workshop (N=5), we developed 45 theory-informed messages and tested them with online participants (N=1232) who completed an incentivized anagram task. Participants were classified as non-cheaters (0% items cheated), partial-cheaters (1-99% cheated), or full-cheaters (100% cheated). Results show that concept-based messages reduced full-cheating occurrence by 42% (33% to 19%), increased non-cheating by 19% (53% to 63%), with no negative effects on performance or experience across integrity groups. Surprisingly, messages grounded in different theoretical concepts produced virtually identical effects. Analyses of self-rated psychological mechanisms revealed that messages influenced multiple mechanisms simultaneously rather than their intended targets, though these mechanisms predicted behavior, performance, and experience. These findings show that causal pathways are more complex than current theories predict. Practically, integrity interventions using supportive motivation rather than rule enforcement can reduce cheating without impairing performance or experience.