Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Mechanisms of academic stress affecting AI-assisted cheating behaviour in college students: a mixed methods study

Wang, Guohua, Tian, Lianghao, Xing, Xueru·2026·Interactive Learning Environments

Abstract

The emergence of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) has provided college students with tools to mitigate academic stress but has also facilitated AI-assisted cheating. However, existing research offers limited insight into how academic stress influences cheating behaviours and the underlying psychological mechanisms, leaving a significant gap in understanding. This study aims to develop and validate a theoretical model explaining how academic stress influences college students’ intentions to engage in AI-assisted cheating. Grounded in the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), this research employed a mixed-methods approach. Quantitative data were analysed to explore relationships among academic stress, academic self-efficacy, attitudes toward AI-assisted cheating, and cheating intentions. A survey analyzed 458 valid questionnaires from students, while follow-up qualitative interviews with 21 students who admitted to using AI to assist in cheating provided in-depth analysis. Findings indicate that academic stress directly influences students’ AI-assisted cheating intentions and indirectly does so through academic self-efficacy and attitudes as mediators. Qualitative interviews reinforced these findings by offering contextual explanations. This study reveals both direct and indirect pathways linking academic stress to AI-assisted cheating, contributing to a deeper theoretical and practical understanding of academic misconduct in the GAI era.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10494820.2025.2565684

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory (pp. xiii, 617). Prentice-Hall, Inc.
  2. Hayes, A. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf

Metadata

Authors
Wang, G., Tian, L., & Xing, X.
Venue
Interactive Learning Environments
Published
2025-10-08
Volume
34
Issue
5
Pages
3358-3372
ISSN
  • 1049-4820
  • 1744-5191
Cited by
1
References
51
Language
en
Licence
doi.org/10.1080/policies-text-data-mining (tdm)
Funders
  • Educational Science Research Fund of Henan Normal University (2023JK12)
  • Research Fund for Educational Strength of Henan Province in Philosophy and Social Sciences (2025JYQS0222)
  • Key Research Fund of Higher Education Institutions in Henan Province (25B880002)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.