The end justifies the means, but only in the middle.

Achieving goals often requires the completion of sequential actions, such as finishing a series of assignments to pass a class. In the course of pursuing such goals, people can decide how closely to follow their personal standards for each action. We propose that actions at the beginning and end of a sequence appear more diagnostic of the pursuer's personal standards than do actions in the middle. Therefore, people are more likely to adhere to their standards at the beginning and end of goal pursuit—and slack in the middle. We demonstrate this pattern of judgment and behavior in adherence to ethical standards (e.g., cheating), religious traditions (e.g., skipping religious rituals), and performance standards (e.g., "cutting corners" on a task). We also show that the motivation to adhere to standards by using proper means is independent and follows a different pattern from the motivation to reach the end state of goal pursuit. People often pursue goals that require the completion of a sequence of actions. For example, a student must complete a series of assignments to pass a class, a cook needs to prepare several courses to make a meal, and a consumer with a frequent buyer card has to make a series of purchases before getting a reward. In the course of pursuing such goals, people can decide how closely to follow their personal standards for each action in the sequence. For example, the student can determine how closely to follow his or her ethical standards on each assignment, and the cook can decide how closely to follow his or her performance standards when preparing each course of the meal. We define standards as norms or principles that people use to evaluate their own and others' conduct. In the context of goal pursuit, adherence to standards reflects a concern with using proper means rather than a focus on reaching the goal's end state. In general, adhering to standards sends positive signals to the self and others about a person's values and character. In some cases, people fail to adhere to their standards because they have not fully acquired the conventions of their society (Bandura, 1977; Burton & Kunce, 1995; Hoffman, 1977; Wright, 1971). Very often, how- ever, individuals who are fully aware and capable of meeting these conventions succumb to the temptation to relax their standards to save time and effort or to gain some other valuable resource (Eisenberg & Shell, 1986). Standards can apply to a variety of domains, ranging from ethics to task performance. The literature on ethics has identified several factors that can make ethical acts seem more acceptable and thereby lead to the relaxation of ethical standards. Thus, percep- tions of wealth-based inequity (Gino & Pierce, 2009), unethical acts of ingroup members (Gino, Ayal, & Ariely, 2009), and depletion of self-control resources (Mead, Baumeister, Gino, Schweitzer, & Ari- ely, 2009) can all encourage people to relax their moral standards, at least temporarily. Moreover, increasing belief in determinism (as opposed to free will; Vohs & Schooler, 2008) or establishing one's moral credentials by expressing virtuous attitudes or traits (Monin & Miller, 2001; Sachdeva, Iliev, & Medin, 2009) can increase the likelihood that one will behave unethically. The question we explore in this article is whether the position of an action in a sequence of goal-related actions influences the likelihood that individuals will adhere to (vs. relax) their standards when performing this action. Specifically, we explore the possi- bility that people follow their ethical and performance standards more carefully for actions at the beginning and end of a sequence because these actions provide a better signal to the self of the true nature of the self.