for their constant encouragement to work hard and finish. To Dr. Sally Kuhlenschmidt, for her very, very early guidance and continued support, and to Dr. John Bruni, who was always happy to answer questions and offer advice, I also give thanks. Both of you did much to support and encourage me without even being on my committee, and I will always remember you both for that. A unique study design enabled examination of these ideas. In this deception study, a convenience sample of participants in face-to-face and online general education courses consented to a study on testing formats in online learning. They answered 18 items querying background information, took a 10-question reading quiz over an original topic, and answered 49 items about attitudes toward cheating and cheating behaviors. To mimic the drive for a good grade and encourage participants to do their best, the researcher offered a chance at a $400 incentive to those who scored high on the quiz. On the quiz, participants could answer only 7 of the 10 open-ended questions using the vi materials provided: to answer the others, participants had to cheat by looking up the remaining 3 on the Internet. The questionnaire's final item asked them to report if they had used outside sources on the quiz to check the accuracy of self-reported cheating.While analysis via t-tests revealed no significant differences between face-to-face and online students in their attitudes toward learning, nor did Pearson's r reveal any significant associations between online students' background variables and cheating, the study did provide a rate of accuracy of self-reported cheating. Analysis of qualitative data gave insight into undergraduates' ideas on what cheating is, how students might cheat, what causes cheating, and how educators and administrators might work to prevent academic dishonesty.