Introduction --- The study aims to extend the research on the influence of environment selection on cheating behavior (Houdek, 2017). We hypothesize that if a person wants to cheat, they prefer an environment where they can cheat. Likewise, honest individuals will avoid a cheating-enabling environment. In comparison with the previous two experiments, we use a different experimental task and we administer the study on-line. **Hypotheses and expectations** *Hypothesis 1:* Participants who choose the cheating-enabling environment will be more likely to report correct predictions in the cheating-enabling environment in one of the first two rounds than participants who choose the cheating-prohibiting environment for the third round. *Hypothesis 2:* Participants who choose the cheating-enabling condition will be more likely to report a correct prediction in the third round than in the cheating-enabling condition in one of the first two rounds. *Hypothesis 3:* Participants who choose the cheating-enabling condition will be more likely to report correct predictions in the third round than those who will be assigned the cheating-enabling condition randomly. *Hypothesis 4:* Selection of the cheating-enabling environment and the probability of reporting correct predictions will be associated with lower values on the Honest-Humility scale of the HEXACO questionnaire. Methods --- **Participants** We will run the experiment in November 2020 with a sample of English speaking participants older than 18 years provided by Prolific. The planned sample size is 1000. The whole experiment will be administered in English. The study’s median expected duration is 5 minutes and all participants will be paid £0.42 (USD 0.55) for their participation. In addition, they will be able to earn a bonus of £1 (USD 1.3). After receiving an invitation from Prolific, participants give informed consent and read a short overview of the experiment. Then, they continue to work, self-paced, according to the instructions shown on their computer screen. **Design and procedure** The experiment is based on a modified mind game (Jiang, 2013). In our variant of the game, participants earn money when they correctly predict the outcomes of two fair coin tosses. There are two different versions of the game: in the BEFORE version, participants state their predictions before the coins are tossed and then they see the outcome. Therefore, no cheating is possible. In the AFTER version, participants are asked to make their predictions in their mind and remember them. Then two coins are tossed and participants are shown the outcomes and they have to state whether they predicted them correctly or not. As the actual predictions are only in participants’ minds, they can cheat and misreport even their incorrect predictions as correct. Participants play three rounds of the game, with two tosses in each round. They are informed beforehand that one round will be selected at random and they get additional monetary reward if they predicted both coin tosses correctly in the selected round. In the first two rounds, every participant plays one round of the game in the AFTER and one in the BEFORE version, in a random order. Then they read short descriptions of both versions of the game. A half of participants is randomly assigned one of the versions for the third round. The remaining participants choose whether they want to play the last round in the BEFORE or AFTER version. In the last part of the experiment, participants answer socio-demographic questions and fill questions related to honesty-humility from the HEXACO scale (Ashton & Lee, 2009). One attention check item asking participants to select a specific response is added to the honesty-humility items. **Materials** Qualtrics file can be downloaded from this OSF component. **Analysis plan** Participants who fail the attention check in the honesty-humility scale will be excluded from all analyses using the honesty-humility score, but not from the other analyses. The analysis of H1-H3 will be conducted using logistic regression or mixed-effect logistic regression (in case of H2) with correctness of the prediction as the dependent variable and choice (H1), round (H2), or condition (H3) as a predictor. H4 will be tested using logistic regressions with correctness of the prediction in the cheating-enabling environment in one of the first two rounds or the selection of cheating-enabling environment for the third round as dependent variables. In the model with the selection as the dependent variable, the correctness of the prediction in the cheating-enabling environment in one of the first two rounds and its interaction with honesty-humility will be included as covariates. (Centered) score on honesty-humility will serve as a predictor. Where possible, we will supplement the outlined analysis with analysis introduced by Moshagen and Hilbig (2017). References --- Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2009). The HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major dimensions of personality. *Journal of Personality Assessment, 91*(4), 340-345. doi: 10.1080/00223890902935878 Houdek, P. (2017). A Perspective on Research on Dishonesty: Limited External Validity Due to the Lack of Possibility of Self-Selection in Experimental Designs. *Frontiers in Psychology, 8*(1566), 1-6. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01566 Jiang, T. (2013). Cheating in mind games: The subtlety of rules matters. *Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 93*, 328-336. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2013.04.003 Moshagen, M., & Hilbig, B. E. (2017). The statistical analysis of cheating paradigms. *Behavior research methods, 49*(2), 724-732.