How often do you cheat? Dispositional influences and intrapersonal stability of dishonest behavior.

Dishonesty, including lying, cheating, deception, and deviating from societal norms, has far-reaching implications across various aspects of modern society. From minor consequences like social discontent to severe outcomes such as economic damage through tax evasion, dishonest behavior affects us in multiple ways. This study investigates whether gender and psychological traits contribute to dishonest behavior, and whether unethical conduct is stable across diverse tasks. We examined 63 participants using a "Difference Spotting Task" (DST) and two motor tasks (1. coordinative throwing; 2. isometric strength). Dishonesty was measured by comparing self-reported performance with actual performance, allowing for a comprehensive analysis of both occurrence and extent of dishonesty. Our findings indicate that gender does not significantly influence the occurrence or extent of dishonest behavior. Moreover, we discovered that "Social Desirability" positively influences the extent of dishonesty, while "Task Orientation" increases the likelihood of engaging in dishonest acts. The study also reveals that the level of dishonesty remains relatively stable across all three tasks at an intrapersonal level.

Effects of exercise mode and intensity on patient-reported outcomes in cancer survivors: a four-arm intervention trial.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of different exercise modes (aerobic, resistance) and intensity prescriptions (standard, polarized, undulating) on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in cancer survivors. METHODS: 107 breast or prostate cancer survivors (52% females, age 58 ± 10 years, 6-52 weeks after primary therapy) performed one out of four training programs, two sessions/week, over 12 weeks: work rate-matched vigorous intensity aerobic training (ATStandard, n = 28) and polarized intensity aerobic training (ATPolarized, n = 26) as well as volume-matched moderate intensity resistance training (RTStandard, n = 26) and daily undulating intensity resistance training (RTUndulating, n = 27). Health-related quality of life (HRQoL, EORTC-QLQ-C30) and cancer-related fatigue (CRF, MFI-20) were assessed at baseline, at the end of intervention and after a 12-week follow-up without further prescribed exercise. RESULTS: Over the intervention period, HRQoL-function-scales of the EORTC-QLQ-C30 improved over time (p = .007), but no group*time interaction was observed (p = .185). Similarly, CRF values of the MFI-20 improved over time (p = .006), but no group*time interaction was observed (p = .663). When including the follow-up period and pooling the AT and the RT groups, HRQoL-function-scales developed differently between groups (p = .022) with further improvements in RT and a decline in AT. For CRF no significant interaction was found, but univariate analyses showed a non-significant trend of more sustainable effects in RT. CONCLUSIONS: AT and RT with different work rate-/volume-matched intensity prescriptions elicits positive effects on HRQoL and CRF, without one regimen being significantly superior to another over the intervention period. However, RT might result in more sustainable effects compared to AT over a follow-up period without any further exercise prescription. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02883699).