Elucidating the Associations Between Achievement Goals and Academic Dishonesty: a Meta-analysis

Academic dishonesty is a pervasive problem undermining the effectiveness of educational institutions. From a motivational perspective, researchers have proposed achievement goals as antecedents of academic dishonesty. Empirical findings corroborate the notion that mastery goals (focus on learning and competence development) are negatively linked to academic dishonesty. However, even though theoretical considerations suggest positive links between performance goals (focus on competence demonstration) and academic dishonesty, empirical findings are mixed. To provide a better understanding of how goals matter for academic dishonesty, we conducted three-level meta-analyses encompassing 163 effect sizes from 33 studies and a total of 19,787 participants. We found a disproportional use of correlational designs (using self-report measures of academic dishonesty) and personal goal measures (opposed to surrounding goal structures). Evidence of publication bias was not found. Our results confirmed the expected negative associations between mastery goals and academic dishonesty and revealed heterogenous findings for performance goals, with indications of positive associations within behavioral and intentional dishonesty measures, but not within self-reports. To further clarify the associations between achievement goals and academic dishonesty, we call for more methodological rigor in the measurement of goals and dishonesty as well as multi-methods approaches when investigating their interplay.

Journal N-Pact Factors From 2011 to 2019: Evaluating the Quality of Social/Personality Journals With Respect to Sample Size and Statistical Power

Scholars and institutions commonly use impact factors to evaluate the quality of empirical research. However, a number of findings published in journals with high impact factors have failed to replicate, suggesting that impact alone may not be an accurate indicator of quality. Fraley and Vazire proposed an alternative index, the N-pact factor, which indexes the median sample size of published studies, providing a narrow but relevant indicator of research quality. In the present research, we expand on the original report by examining the N-pact factor of social/personality-psychology journals between 2011 and 2019, incorporating additional journals and accounting for study design (i.e., between persons, repeated measures, and mixed). There was substantial variation in the sample sizes used in studies published in different journals. Journals that emphasized personality processes and individual differences had larger N-pact factors than journals that emphasized social-psychological processes. Moreover, N-pact factors were largely independent of traditional markers of impact. Although the majority of journals in 2011 published studies that were not well powered to detect an effect of ρ = .20, this situation had improved considerably by 2019. In 2019, eight of the nine journals we sampled published studies that were, on average, powered at 80% or higher to detect such an effect. After decades of unheeded warnings from methodologists about the dangers of small-sample designs, the field of social/personality psychology has begun to use larger samples. We hope the N-pact factor will be supplemented by other indices that can be used as alternatives to improve further the evaluation of research.

Why Has Personality Psychology Played an Outsized Role in the Credibility Revolution?

Personality is not the most popular subfield of psychology. But, in one way or another, personality psychologists have played an outsized role in the ongoing "credibility revolution" in psychology. Not only have individual personality psychologists taken on visible roles in the movement, but our field's practices and norms have now become models for other fields to emulate (or, for those who share Baumeister's (2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.02.003) skeptical view of the consequences of increasing rigor, a model for what to avoid). In this article we discuss some unique features of our field that may have placed us in an ideal position to be leaders in this movement. We do so from a subjective perspective, describing our impressions and opinions about possible explanations for personality psychology's disproportionate role in the credibility revolution. We also discuss some ways in which personality psychology remains less-than-optimal, and how we can address these flaws.