The Influence of Psychological Entitlement on Cheating in AI-assisted language assessment and Its Countermeasures

The Influence of Psychological Entitlement on Cheating in AI-assisted language assessment and Its Countermeasures | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article The Influence of Psychological Entitlement on Cheating in AI-assisted language assessment and Its Countermeasures Yidan Gao This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7311807/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 17 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Psychological entitlement is a stable and universal feeling that people think they deserve more and enjoy more than others. This study aims to explore the influence of psychological entitlement on cheating in AI assisted language tests. The research questions focus on whether psychological entitlement impacts cheating, the reasons behind this link, and potential measures to address it in language education. A questionnaire survey was conducted among 121 students, revealing high reliability and validity with Cronbach's α coefficient at 0.79 and KMO value at 0.766. Exploratory factor analysis and principal component analysis identified six common factors, all with an absolute factor load greater than 0.5. Results indicate that students with strong psychological entitlement are more likely to cheat due to their belief in inherent academic success without personal effort. This is influenced by family, school, and societal factors. Based on these findings, the paper suggests countermeasures such as enhancing ethical integrity, adopting multiple test methods, implementing language learning processes, and strengthening remote exam supervision. These measures provide theoretical support for understanding and preventing cheating in AI assisted language assessments. AI assisted language tests cheating countermeasures psychological rights Introduction With the widespread application of AI technology in the field of language testing (Biju et al., 2024 ; Rahman et al., 2024 ; Shamsuddinova et al., 2024 ), such as IELTS computer-based tests, TOEFL iBT Speaking Section, and China's College English Test Band 4 and Band 6 online exams, cheating phenomena in various AI-assisted language assessments have become more covert (Benaissa et al., 2025; Wu et al., 2023). Students from Jiangxi Branch of China Mobile used AI tools to generate text or translate it without citation to gain an improper advantage. (Chan, 2024 ) In AI-assisted language assessment, "Cheating" refers to students' improper use of AI tools to gain unfair advantages. Violations of academic integrity (Ozer, 2024 ) (Kutbi et al., 2024 ; Trabelsi et al., 2023 ; Lee et al., 2024 ). This kind of behavior may include but is not limited to the following forms: First, using AI to generate content and posing as original: Students may use AI tools such as ChatGPT to generate papers, assignments or exam answers. Then submit it as one's own original work (Bin-Nashwan et al., 2023 ; Pudasaini et al., 2024; Gruenhagen et al., 2024). This kind of behavior directly violates academic integrity because students do not make the due efforts to complete the assignments (Kutbi et al., 2024 ). Second, unauthorized AI assistance: Even if students are allowed to use AI tools, if they overly rely on AI without engaging in critical thinking and completing assignments independently, it may also constitute cheating (Chan, 2024 ). For example, students might use AI to generate the first draft of an article, but submit it directly without making sufficient revisions and polishing (Wang, 2024; Wang et al., 2024 ). Third, contract cheating: Students may entrust others or AI services to complete assignments through payment or other means, and then submit them as their own works (Kutbi et al., 2024 ; Gaumann & Veale, 2024 ). This kind of behavior seriously undermines the fairness of academic assessment because students do not truly master the knowledge they have learned (Kutbi et al., 2024 ). Fourth, AI plagiarism: Students may use AI tools to copy and paste content from various sources without correct citation (Sozon et al., 2024). This includes direct copying, post-translation copying or slightly modified copying (Chan, 2024 ). Cheating behavior undermines the fundamental purpose of education, which is to cultivate students' knowledge and skills (Wu et al., 2023). If students obtain high scores through cheating, they may not truly master what they have learned, thereby affecting their future studies and career development (Sozon et al., 2024). Cheating puts honest students at a disadvantage because they need to make more efforts to achieve the same grades as cheaters (Wu et al., 2023). This will reduce students' trust in academic assessment and may lead to unfair results (Kutbi et al., 2024 ). If cheating is widespread, the reputation of academic institutions may be damaged (Sozon et al., 2024). Employers and society may be skeptical of the graduates of this institution, considering their abilities and knowledge unreliable (Wu et al., 2023). Psychological entitlement is one of the factors influencing college students' cheating behavior and the underlying mechanisms (Ji, 2024). It refers to an individual's subjective belief that they have the right to enjoy special treatment and be exempted from responsibilities (Laird et al., 2015 ). Individuals holding this belief tend to view rules as "restrictions" rather than fair criteria. Think that one deserves more treatment (such as respect, resources, privileges, etc.) without putting in the corresponding effort or assuming responsibility. (Ji, 2024). when these expectations exceed an individual's actual abilities. This belief may lead to a series of unethical behaviors in the workplace and academic environment (Zaheer et al., 2022 ; Stiles et al., 2017 ; Thomason & Brownlee, 2018 ). such as cheating to achieve higher grades. To provide theoretical and empirical support for reducing college students' cheating behavior and deal with the new challenges brought by AI And cultivate students' sense of responsibility for academic integrity (Shaayesteh et al., 2025 ; Trabelsi et al., 2023 ). This paper aims to explore the influence of psychological privilege on cheating behavior in AI-assisted language assessment and study the corresponding countermeasures. Specifically, this article will explore the following several core issues: 1. How does psychological privilege affect students' willingness and behavior to cheat in AI-assisted language assessment? 2. What factors can exacerbate or mitigate the impact of psychological privilege on cheating behavior? 3. What countermeasures can be taken to prevent and deal with cheating in AI-assisted language assessment, thereby maintaining academic integrity? Literature review Concept and Measurement of Psychological Entitlement The concept of psychological entitlement was born out of research on the sense of entitlement and narcissistic behavior, but previous studies often conflated the concepts of psychological entitlement and the sense of entitlement. The sense of entitlement refers to a series of attitudes regarding what people think they are entitled to and what they can expect from others (Bai Baoyu, Sun Runsong, Hu Qiao, et al., 2017). According to Tolmacz and Mikulincer (2011), the sense of entitlement includes three types: first is the normal adaptive sense of entitlement, that is, being able to objectively assess what one is entitled to or has a right to expect from others; second is the inhibited sense of entitlement, that is, individuals lack confidence in their right to have certain rights or meet certain needs; third is the excessive or exaggerated sense of entitlement, that is, individuals' expectations or evaluations of what they should receive far exceed what they are entitled to. It is the pathological level of the sense of entitlement, namely an exaggerated sense of entitlement, that is often associated with negative outcomes. Individuals with higher psychological entitlement tend to have higher self-centered tendencies, they tend to prioritize their own needs and interests over others, and are more likely to experience negative emotions such as anger and resentment when facing setbacks or adverse situations (Dreiling, 2015). In terms of measuring psychological entitlement, the Psychological Entitlement Scale (Psychological Entitlement Scale) developed by Campbell (Campbell) (2004) and others is widely used. This scale evaluates an individual's level of psychological entitlement in different situations through 9 items, and has high reliability and validity, and is widely used in psychological and social science research (Rothman & Steil, 2012). High levels of psychological entitlement are linked to higher self-centeredness. Individuals with high entitlement often prioritize their own needs over others and are more likely to experience negative emotions when faced with challenges (Dreiling, 2015). Research indicates that psychological entitlement plays a significant role in educational settings. For example, Wang Zhou and Bian Qian (2011) found that students who cannot achieve success goals defined by society may resort to accumulating wealth through public power to relieve tension. Manal Eltayeb Mohamed Idris (2025) explored the complex relationship between shades of meaning and polysemy in English and Arabic translation. The study highlighted the influence of psychological entitlement in these processes. With the advent of AI technology, psychological entitlement has gained attention in language translation and teaching. Li and Huang (2025) designed an intelligent grading system for college English translation based on big data technology. The use of AI in legal translation presents ethical risks. Wang (2025) discussed the potential moral dilemmas and copyright issues associated with generative AI translation technologies. Zhou and Hou (2025) examined how EFL teachers utilize AI tools in language instruction. Their findings suggest that AI can enhance teaching quality and student engagement. The present review has explored the concept, measurement, and implications of psychological entitlement in various fields, including education, business, and cross-cultural studies. It indicates that psychological entitlement is a multi-dimensional and complex psychological phenomenon, which has important application value and research significance in education, career, and cross-cultural communication. Characteristics and Development Status of AI-Assisted Language Assessments AI-assisted language assessments are innovative testing methods that leverage artificial intelligence technology, which has the characteristics of efficiency, objectivity, flexibility, etc. (Ashutosh Nayak, & Ashwin Aravindakshan Nair, 2025). It integrates a variety of technical means such as natural language processing, speech recognition and machine learning, and can realize multi-dimensional and all-round evaluation of candidates' language ability. AI-assisted language examinations can generate random test questions and provide objective scoring. This eliminates the biases associated with human examiners, ensuring a more equitable evaluation process. Moreover, it has flexible test time, more objective and accurate scoring, and provides personalized feedback. Students can take the exam at their own pace, and the system can adapt to individual learning styles and proficiency levels. What’s more, AI systems can also achieve the goals of high reliability and cost-effectiveness of the examination system since it can detect cheating through technical means, such as identifying copying or other forms of academic dishonesty. This feature enhances the credibility of the examination process. In order to prevent students from cheating in the exam, the AI-assisted language examination system intelligently judges whether there is cheating (copying other files as answers) through technical means, and displays it in the marking analysis, thus improving the credibility of the exam. At present, AI-assisted language examinations have been applied in various English proficiency tests, including IELTS and TOEFL. For instance, the oral part of the IELTS machine examination uses intelligent speech recognition technology for scoring (Zhou, & Hou, 2025). Studies have explored the application of AI in translating Arabic text into English, highlighting the complexities involved in maintaining meaning and context during translation. These studies underscore the importance of cultural sensitivity in AI-assisted language examinations (Gao, & La, 2025). The use of AI in language translation and testing raises several ethical concerns, particularly regarding copyright issues and the potential misuse of generated content. Researchers are actively exploring ways to address these challenges while maximizing the benefits of AI technology (Mark Tutton, & Doron Cohen, 2025). However, with the expansion of its application range, the problem of cheating has gradually emerged, which needs to be further explored from the education sector and all sectors of society. Influencing Factors of Assessment Cheating Research on cheating in assessments has gradually increased, covering various aspects such as its influencing factors, consequences, and countermeasures. Zhou Xia (2015) conducted a survey and analysis of the frequency of cheating among college students using a stratified three-stage sampling method. The study found that individual factors such as moral concepts, personality traits, and learning motivation can influence students' cheating behavior. Additionally, family factors like parental education methods and expectations, school factors such as examination systems and teacher supervision, and social factors including societal attitudes and the cost of cheating also play a significant role in students' decisions to cheat. Ye Lei (2014) discussed the methods used to punish cheating in exams, specifically questioning the appropriateness of the "free shipping" approach. He argued that this method might have negative repercussions for students and emphasized the need for more reasonable and humane disciplinary actions. Yue Yu (2011) examined the legality of expelling students for cheating in English exams. While acknowledging that expulsion is a severe punishment, he highlighted the need for further exploration and regulation regarding its legality. Gong Yanping and Qin Hongxia (2010) pondered the issue of cheating and counteracting it in College English Test Level Four exams. They proposed several anti-cheating strategies, such as strengthening invigilation, improving technological measures, and enhancing moral education among students, to effectively curb cheating behavior. Maite Correa (2014) discussed the dilemma faced by editors in modern language instruction in her article "The editor dilemma in modern language instruction: Is tutoring out of control?" Although this work does not directly address exam cheating, it delves into the boundaries and consequences of academic misconduct. In conclusion, cheating in exams is complex involving multiple factors. This study intends to investigate whether psychological entitlement has an impact on students cheating in AI assisted language assessments and what are the causes of psychological entitlement that lead to cheating in examinations. If psychological entitlement has an impact on exam cheating, what measures should those involved in language education take to counteract exam cheating? It explores how to use various methods to effectively prevent and reduce cheating while ensuring the fairness. Methods This study adopts a combination of questionnaire survey and interview methods, targeting English major students at a university in Central China. All participants provided written informed consent prior to participation, confirming their understanding of the study purpose and data usage. This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. While the university does not operate an Institutional Review Board, the study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Departmental Research Ethics Panel of the School of Foreign Languages, ×× University (Ref. FL-2023-01). Procedures Firstly, data is collected through a questionnaire to understand the students' levels of psychological entitlement, their attitudes towards AI-assisted language examinations, and their cheating behaviors during exams. Secondly, interviews are conducted with selected representative students to deeply explore the mechanisms through which psychological entitlement affects their cheating behaviors. Participants A random sampling method was employed to select 121 students from English majors. This research was sent to each student aged 21-22. These students have all participated in AI-assisted English exams, such as mock College English Test Band 4 and Band 6 computer-based tests or other internal online English assessments, to ensure they have some understanding and experience of AI-assisted language examinations. Questionnaire In this research, the questionnaire named The Influence of Psychological Entitlement on Cheating in AI assisted language examination and its Countermeasures is delivered on the website Questioning Star APP. This questionnaire consists of and the data was analyzed using SPSS. The questionnaire consists of several parts as follows: first, psychological entitlement scale: Using an existing psychological entitlement scale, with a total of 10 items, that is 6 single choice questions and 4 multiple choice questions. A Likert 5-point scale is adopted for scoring (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), with a higher score indicating a higher level of psychological entitlement. Second, AI-assisted language assessement attitude questionnaire. This self-compiled questionnaire with 6 items, covering students' recognition, difficulty perception, and fairness evaluation of AI-assisted language assessment. The Likert 5-point scale is also employed for scoring. Third, exam cheating behavior questionnaire. Referencing previous questionnaire designs for exam cheating behavior research and combining the characteristics of AI-assisted language assessments, we developed 3 items. The questionnaire asks whether students have engaged in cheating behaviors during their most recent AI-assisted language assessment (such as using unauthorized software or devices to cheat, plagiarizing online materials, etc.). If there was any cheating behavior, further questions are asked about the methods and reasons behind it. Interview Based on the research objectives and the results of the questionnaire survey, we formulated a semi-structured interview outline. The interview outline mainly includes the following questions: Have you engaged in cheating behavior during AI-assisted language assessments? If so, could you describe the situation in detail? What factors influenced your decision to cheat during the exam? What role did psychological entitlement play? What suggestions do you have for schools and teachers in preventing cheating in AI-assisted language assessments? Results and Data Analysis The reliability and credibility of the questionnaire In this study, a 7-point Likert scale was used for the questionnaire survey. The reliability analysis of the questionnaire showed that the items of the questionnaire had high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.79) (Table 1). Table 1 is available here. Analyzing the KMO value (Table 2). If the value is between 0.7 and 0.8, it indicates that the research data is suitable for extracting information. If the value is between 0.6 and 0.7, it means that the study data is suitable for this research. In the present questionnaire, the KMO value is 0.766, greater than 0.7 which shows that it is very suitable for factor analysis. The sphericity test indicated a significant value of 0.00<0.05. Therefore, the questionnaire has high construct validity. For each independent scale, the evaluation values of each question were summed and then divided by the number of questions to obtain the mean, which represents self-efficacy. SPSS 26.0 was employed to conduct correlation analysis (Pearson's correlation coefficient) and independent samples t-tests on the collected data. Table 2 is available here. The validity test uses exploratory factor analysis and principal component analysis to extract 6 common factors. The absolute value of factor load of all questions in the questionnaire is greater than 0.5 and there is no component interspersed. These factors are:（1）have you ever cheated on a AI assisted language test ?(2) Do you think you have psychological entitlement? (3) Would you consider cheating in a AI assisted language test because you have psychological entitlement? (4) Would it be easier for you to consider cheating if you had psychological entitlement? (5) Do you think psychological entitlement increases the likelihood of cheating in remote language tests? (6) Do you think psychological entitlement affects the moral evaluation of cheating? According to the results of 121 online electronic questionnaires, with 51.24% and 35.54% of the respondents saying that cheating in AI assisted exams is definitely and probably affected by psychological entitlement, respectively, we can answer the question “Does psychological entitlement have an impact on students cheating in AI assisted language assessments? ” The psychological has an important impact on cheating in AI assisted language assessments. Discussion With the spread of AI assisted learning, more and more exams are being conducted online. However, cheating occurs in online examinations and there are significant problems with the reliability and quality of the examinations. According to the results of the 121 online e-questionnaires distributed by the author, more than half of the students (78.51%) admitted to having cheated in AI assisted language examinations. This situation indicates that the current situation of dishonest behaviors in AI assisted tests is serious. Psychological Entitlement as an Important Factor in Language assessment Cheating It has been shown that individuals with high psychological entitlement exhibit more cheating-related behaviors. Cheating is a classic form of deceptive behaviour and is more common in student compared to other cheating behaviors(Sun, 2022). The irrational belief in psychological entitlement, which makes individuals more narcissistic, can also lead to a lower sense of social responsibility, which is closely related to the reasons why students cheat. In addition to this, Grubbs and Exline (2016) proposed a multi-path model to explain the ways in which psychological entitlement leads to various undesirable behaviors and psychological distress. The model suggests that psychological entitlement consists of three core concepts, namely exaggerated expectations, a sense of entitlement and the notion of self-particularity. Individuals with high levels of psychological entitlement have exaggerated expectations, and the expectations they have are not always met. When some expectations are not met, the psychologically lost reaction further reinforces the individual’s psychological entitlement, thus creating a vicious circle(Greenberger E, Lessard J, Chen C, et al., 2008). In addition, students’ psychological entitlement is closely related to student consumerism. Student consumerism refers to the idea that because students are paying for their education, they should be treated as customers in the true sense of the word. Achacoso (2006) proposed that students’ consumerism psychology is reflected in two dimensions: belief in rights and behavior of rights. The former is defined as the belief that students can achieve high grades without much effort; The latter is defined as the student’s right to argue with the teacher and demand a higher grade. Although not all students hold this view, those who display this sense of entitlement occupy a great deal of the time and energy of teachers and education administrators. Causes of Psychological Entitlement That Leads to Language assessment Cheating The seventh question（multiple choice）in this questionnaire explored the causes of psychological entitlement that lead to cheating in AI assisted examinations. Respondents identified three categories of causes for the psychological entitlement of cheating on exams. The first category was the factor of parental nurturing style. 80.99% of students thought it was due to parents being so negligent that their children did not develop the entitlement values. Also 90.08% believed that it was due to parents having too high expectations. The second category was due to school management, with 70.31% believing it was due to the school tolerating students’ deviant behaviour. In the third category, 78.51% and 94.21% thought it was due to social factors such as one-child policy and the pressure to achieve high grades respectively. Parental nurturing style is the first cause. Greenberg et al. (2008) specifically studied the role of parents and families in the formation of students’ psychological rights. They used a systematic approach to study psychological entitlement. Their study found that when parents compared their children to other peers, they put pressure on their own children to achieve more, causing these children to have higher rates of achievement anxiety and motivation to cheat than their peers. Parents who have high expectations for their children’s achievement see achieving high academic achievement as a mechanism to motivate or guide their children towards excellence. “You should be better than your friends at school” , “Your cousin is a very famous student.” In this family circumstance, it is likely that cheating will become a coping mechanism for these children to achieve the academic goals expected of them by their parents. In addition, when parents overindulge their children, they may be overly controlling of their children’s activities and daily behaviour. This type of over-involved parenting may also cause more pain and stress for the child, making the child selfish, demanding and psychologically more entitled. What’s more, parents’ non-responsiveness to questions posed by their children in the family environment as well as negative answers affect the level of psychological entitlement of their children (Magaro and Weisz, 2006). When adolescents grow up through a series of negative experiences, after not receiving enough care and understanding from their parents, it may lead to individuals believing that they deserve better than others to make up for their shortcomings (Shao, Zhu, Jian，2018). The second category is school factors. 70.31% students believed that it was because the school tolerated cheating by individual students that led to students developing psychological entitlement and cheating in examinations. This thesis speculates that there are two main reasons for this. Firstly, the rise of for-profit online language education has driven a proliferation of language education options, meaning that students have a lot of choice in their language learning pursuits. If not satisfied with the teacher or service, students can easily choose to continue their language education elsewhere. This has slowly forced providers to compete for students, as online language education providers rely on tuition as their main form of income. They even treat students like customers in order to attract and retain them. Secondly, the policy of anonymous assessment by teachers is also an important factor in the increase of academic entitlement for students. According to a survey of 127 teachers in American universities conducted by Keith Spiegel et al., 77% of teachers think that dealing with cheating is a very tedious and difficult task. The main reasons why teachers ignore cheating are the anxiety and pressure of dealing with cheating cases in the absence of evidence of cheating, and the fear of retaliation and accusations from students. The third category is social factors. 78.51% of the respondents believed that the one-child policy was the reason for students cheating. Almost all (94.21%) believed that too much pressure to study leads to students developing psychological entitlement and causes them to cheat in exams. The behaviour of parents and teachers constantly reinforces the students’ sense of psychological entitlement. In order to meet their parents’ high expectations of their students’ academic performance, this generation of students often cheats in order to gain instant gratification. They do not really sink their teeth into gaining knowledge and real grades in their studies (Ebele and Olofu, 2017). Countermeasures In response to the question “What measures should be proposed to reduce the psychological entitlement of students in order to solve the problem of cheating in AI assisted language examinations”, the responses were divided into three main areas. Firstly, 90.08% said that schools should improve their monitoring mechanisms for AI assisted learning exams so that students with a high sense of psychological entitlement cannot cheat in exams and move from “having to cheat” to “not being able to cheat”. Secondly, 87.6% believe that language teachers can also protect students from psychological entitlement by improving teaching styles and engaging students in active learning. The third strategy is in the area of parenting. 89.26.% believe that parents should adopt a warm parenting approach to help students develop the right moral and examination values. They should start from the subjective reasons why students are psychologically entitled to cheat in exams, so as to reduce their sense of psychological entitlement and change from “wanting to cheat” to “not wanting to cheat”. Specific countermeasures are as follows. Enhancing the Students’ Sense of Integrity and Moral Values Firstly, from the school’s point of view, it is important to establish a system of integrity for students from the moment they enter the school, which will follow them throughout their studies and even into their working lives. This is essential not only in the field of education but also in the social life of the student. By making integrity a measurable factor in the evaluation of each individual’s personality, it will create an invisible constraint on students’ behaviour during examinations, which will also help them indirectly to develop a sense of integrity in examinations. At the same time, schools can also set up some honesty education classes to help students gain the sense of moral shame, which refers to a self-directed painful experience based on the concept of right and wrong, good and evil, honor and disgrace when an individual violates moral concepts or feels incompetent. Setting Reasonable Goals and Plans to Relieve Students’ Stress Cheating in AI assisted language tests is most likely because students want to get good grades rather than invest too much in language learning. Language educators should motivate students to study hard, guide them to understand the meaning of learning, help them to buckle up for the first time in their lives and encourage them to become fighters. Students should be motivated to study hard and learn so that they see learning in the right light, understanding that they are learning not for others but for themselves, for their future in society and for the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. Parents are not only material providers for their children, but also psychological supporters and spiritual providers for their children. Parents should adopt a warm and understanding approach to parenting, so that children feel loved, supported and accompanied by their parents (Holt, 2010). Apart from this, parents should not interfere too much in their children’s lives as children often want to be independent. And capable parents should take the initiative to learn how to raise children and get the right way to raise children (Miller, Petrie, and Bigler, 2013). Parents should set reasonable expectations and focus on the process rather than the outcome. Emotional factors can hinder or accelerate language acquisition. True language acquisition can only be achieved under optimal emotional conditions (Fangfang Xie, 2023). Anxiety is one of these emotional factors, and language performance anxiety affects the learner’s learning process. This is why moderate parental expectations are more helpful in promoting children’s language learning. While grades are not the only measure of learning effectiveness. Parents should actively guide their children to form good study habits and attitudes. In this way, children can acquire the right values and reduce the chances of their children developing psychological entitlement sense. Reforming of the Language Examination Format Teachers scientifically evaluate students’ learning process, learning ability and learning effectiveness, and continuously guide students to give full play to their learning potential. Students’ learning process is evaluated objectively and comprehensively. It enables students to feel a sense of achievement and enhances self-confidence, which can effectively alleviate the anxiety caused by language learning. Schools should not impose a rigid teaching schedule, but focus on student mastery. At the same time, teachers can change the form of assessment, not necessarily by closed book, but also by combining a large essay with a diversified assessment that tests not only students’ knowledge but also their ability to use their language knowledge to analyze and solve problems, such as closed book, open book, semi-open book tests, oral examinations and small designs. Enhancing the Language Class Experience Teaching should make full use of changes such as the flipped classroom to involve students in the process of teaching and learning. The traditional “indoctrination” mode of teaching should be transformed into an interactive one. Participatory learning is adopted. Teachers warm up the classroom atmosphere, such as making appropriate pauses in the lecture process to provide students with time for reflection, or asking questions to encourage students to have free discussion, drawing as many students as possible into the interactive situation, and fully respecting students’ desire for expression. From the students’ point of view, the teaching method is clearly different from that of the traditional classroom and is more innovative and interesting. This helps to gradually build a harmonious, trusting and positive atmosphere in the language classroom and to continuously increase students’ motivation for language learning. Increasing students’ interest in language learning provides a good basis for current student achievement and for future learning in related subjects. Schools Taking Measures to Curb Examinees’ Cheating The first measure is browser identity verification. Obtaining and modifying the User-Agent of the browser called by the client, and the server side verifies whether the browser accessing the examination system is based on the specified client by verifying the User-Agent, so as to prevent candidates from accessing the examination system through ordinary browsers and circumventing the control of the examination system. Secondly, automatic disconnection from the test server can be added at the same time. If a candidate wants to find a question that they “can’t do” through another program on their computer, everything changes to another window and then switches back to the window where the exam system is located, the window where the exam system is located has been disconnected from the server and the candidate can only log in again through the address where the exam server is located and can enter the test system again to take the test and the content of the previous test is no longer there so that the test taker will not be able to switch optionally the current test page during the test. Thirdly, in order to prevent candidates from matching each other’s questions, the system is designed with the function of randomly drawing questions, after entering the examination system, candidates will randomly draw questions before the examination and then display them on the screen. Conclusion This study investigated the impact of psychological entitlement on cheating in AI assisted language assessments, revealing a significant correlation between entitlement and academic dishonesty. Through a questionnaire survey of 121 students, the research found that psychological entitlement is identified as a key contributing factor. Students with high entitlement displayed a sense of deservingness, believing they could achieve academic success without effort, leading to increased cheating tendencies. The findings highlight three critical causes: (1) family influences, such as parental neglect or unrealistic expectations; (2) school policies, including tolerance of misconduct and grade inflation; and (3) social pressures, such as the one-child policy and academic competition. These factors collectively foster a mindset where cheating is normalized as a shortcut to meet external demands. To address this, the study proposes multifaceted countermeasures: enhancing integrity education, adopting process-based assessments, improving remote proctoring technologies (e.g., browser verification, random question generation), and promoting parental guidance to cultivate realistic expectations. These strategies aim to shift students from "wanting to cheat" to "choosing not to cheat," fostering ethical behavior and academic accountability. The research contributes theoretically by contextualizing psychological entitlement within Chinese educational and cultural frameworks, extending Western theories to an Eastern context. Practically, it provides actionable insights for educators and policymakers to design interventions that mitigate cheating in digital learning environments. However, limitations include the reliance on self-report data and a single university sample, suggesting future studies should adopt longitudinal designs and diverse populations to generalize findings. Declarations Clinical trial number Not applicable. Ethics approval and consent to participate Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and received approval from the Ethics Review Committee of the School of Foreign Languages of Nanchang Hangkong University, China. Permission for data collection was granted by the administration of the participating institution. Consent for publication Not applicable. This manuscript does not contain any individual person’s data in any form. Funding No funding was received for this study. Author Contribution Yidan Gao wrote the main manuscript text, prepared figures, reviewed the manuscript. References Achacoso, M. V. (2006). "What do you mean my grade is not an A?": An investigation of academic entitlement, causal attributions, and self-regulation in college students. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin). Ashutosh Nayak, & Ashwin Aravindakshan Nair. (2025). Language translation effects in Chatbots: Evidence from a randomized field experiment on a mobile commerce platform. Journal of Business Research , 190, 115158-115158. Bai Baoyu, Sun Runsong, Hu Qiao, et al. (2017). Psychological entitlement: Concept, measurement, and related research. Advances in Psychological Science , 25(6), 127-137. Biju, N., Abdelrasheed, N. S. G., Bakiyeva, K., Prasad, K. D. V., & Jember, B. (2024). Which one? AI-assisted language assessment or paper format: an exploration of the impacts on foreign language anxiety, learning attitudes, motivation, and writing performance. Language Testing in Asia, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-024-00322-z Bin-Nashwan, S. A., Sadallah, M., & Bouteraa, M. (2023). Use of ChatGPT in academia: Academic integrity hangs in the balance. Technology in Society, 75, 102370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102370 Bretag, Tracey. (2016). Handbook of Academic Integrity | Perspectives on Academic Integrity in Colombia and Latin America . 2016: 162. Cain, J., Romanelli, F., & Smith, K. M. (2012). Academic Entitlement in Pharmacy Education. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 76(10), 1. Campbell, K. (2004). Measuring psychological entitlement. J ournal of Personality Assessment , 86(1), 1-11. Campbell, W. K., Bonacci, A. M., Shelton, J., Exline, J. J., & Bushman, B. J. (2004). Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-report measure. Journal of Personality Assessment , 83(1), 29–45. Chan, C. K. Y. (2024). Students’ perceptions of ‘AI-giarism’: investigating changes in understandings of academic misconduct. Education and Information Technologies , 30 (6), 8087–8108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13151-7 Changyin Zhou, & Fanfan Hou. (2025). How do EFL teachers utilize AI tools in their language teaching? Theory and Practice in Language Studies , 15(2), 403-413. Donny Jackson. (2025). Intrado unveils plans to streamline 911 translation with AI. Urgent Communications. Dreiling, E. A. (2015). The interrelationships among perceived parenting styles, psychological entitlement, and subjective well-being. Dissertations & Theses - Gradworks. Ebele, U. F., & Olofu, P. A. (2017). Study Habit and Its Impact on Secondary School Students Academic Performance in Biology in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. Educational Research and Reviews , 12(10), 584. Gaumann, N., & Veale, M. (2024). AI providers as criminal essay mills? Large language models meet contract cheating law. Information & Communications Technology Law, 33(3), 276–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2024.2352692 Greenberger, E., Lessard, J., Chen, C., & Farruggia, S. P. (2008). Self-entitled college students: Contributions of personality, parenting, and motivational factors. Journal of Youth & Adolescence , 37(10), 1193-1204. Grubbs, J. B., & Exline, J. J. (2016). Trait entitlement: A cognitive-personality source of vulnerability to psychological distress. Psychological Bulletin , 142(11), 1204–1226. Holt, A. (2010). Managing “Spoiled Identities”: Parents’ experiences of compulsory parenting support programmes. Children & Society (5), 414. Huang Feng, Zhang Shasha, He Qingqing. (2022). The influence of psychological entitlement on college students' cheating behaviors: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Hefei Teachers College , 40(03), 34. Kutbi, M., Al-Hoorie, A. H., & Al-Shammari, A. H. (2024). Detecting contract cheating through linguistic fingerprint. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03160-9 Laird, M. D., Harvey, P., Lancaster, J. Accountability, entitlement, tenure, and satisfaction in Generation Y . Journal of Managerial Psychology , 2015, 30(1): 87-100. Lee, V. R., Pope, D., Miles, S., & Zárate, R. C. (2024). Cheating in the age of generative AI: A high school survey study of cheating behaviors before and after the release of ChatGPT. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence , 7, 100253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100253 Magaro, M. M., & Weisz, J. R. (2006). Perceived Control Mediates the Relation Between Parental Rejection and Youth Depression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 2006(6), 868. Mark Tutton & Doron Cohen. (2025). Reconceptualizing the role of the university language teacher in light of generative AI. Education Sciences , 15(1), 56-56. Miller, M. J., Petrie, J. A., Bigler, E. D., et al. (2013). Comprehensive Assessment of Child and Adolescent Memory: The Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning, the Test of Memory and Learning, and the California Verbal Learning Test-Children’s Version. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: chapter 15, 89. Mohamed, B., Attou, Y., Seddik, M., & Abdelhamid, N. (2025). From Chatting to Cheating: How Can Ethical Considerations Be Ensured in this AI-Driven Research Era? International Journal of Language and Literary Studies, 7(1), 287–297. https://doi.org/10.36892/ijlls.v7i1.1996 Ozer, O. (2024). AI language models: A breach of academic integrity in online language learning? Studies in Language Assessment, 237–262. https://doi.org/10.58379/ezys5680 Prainsack, B., & Forgó, N. (2024). New AI regulation in the EU seeks to reduce risk without assessing public benefit. Nature Medicine, 30(5), 1235–1237. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-02874-2 Rahman, A., Raj, A., Tomy, P., & Hameed, M. S. (2024). A comprehensive bibliometric and content analysis of artificial intelligence in language learning: tracing between the years 2017 and 2023. Artificial Intelligence Review , 57(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-023-10643-9 Rothman, A. M., & Steil, J. M. (2012). Adolescent attachment and entitlement in a world of wealth. Journal of Infant Child & Adolescent Psychotherapy , 11(1), 53-65. Saheb, T., & Saheb, T. (2024). Mapping Ethical Artificial Intelligence Policy Landscape: A Mixed Method Analysis. Science and Engineering Ethics , 30(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-024-00472-6 Shaayesteh, M. T., Esfahani, S. M., & Mohit, H. (2025). AI Identity, Empowerment, and Mindfulness in Mitigating Unethical AI Use (Version 2). arXiv. https://doi.org/ 10.48550/ARXIV.2503.20099 Shamsuddinova, S., Heryani, P., & Naval, M. A. (2024). Evolution to revolution: Critical exploration of educators’ perceptions of the impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on the teaching and learning process in the GCC region. International Journal of Educational Research , 125, 102326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2024.102326 Shao Zhu, Jian. (2018). Research on the guidance mechanism of public opinion in colleges and universities in the micro era. Campus English (2), 1. Stiles, B. L., Wong, N. C. W., & LaBeff, E. E. (2017). College Cheating Thirty Years Later: The Role of Academic Entitlement. Deviant Behavior, 39(7), 823–834. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2017.1335520 Sun Jingtong. (2022). The relationship between parenting style, self-esteem, sense of purpose in life, and learning engagement among high school students. Harbin Normal University: 59. Thomason, S., & Brownlee, A. (2018). Ethical Decision Making and Psychological Entitlement. Business and Society Review, 123(4), 631–659. https://doi.org/10.1111/basr.12158 Tolmacz, R., & Mikulincer, M. (2011). The sense of entitlement in romantic relationships - Scale construction, factor structure, construct validity, and its associations with attachment orientations. Psychoanalytic Psychology , 28(1), 75-94. Trabelsi, Z., Parambil, M. M. A., Alnajjar, F., & Ali, L. (2023). Behavioral-based real-time cheating detection in academic exams using deep learning techniques. In AIP Conference Proceedings 2909 (1), 2023. Wang Yadan, Kong Fanchang, Zhao Gai, et al. (2020). The mediating effects of parenting style on adolescent gratitude: The roles of psychological entitlement and perspective taking. Psychological Development and Education , 20(04), 427. Wang, C., Aguilar, S. J., Bankard, J. S., Bui, E., & Nye, B. (2024). Writing with AI: What College Students Learned from Utilizing ChatGPT for a Writing Assignment. Education Sciences , 14(9), 976. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14090976 Xie Fangfang. (2023). An empirical study on the investigation and impact of the anxiety of college students' English test in the online environment. Scientific Counselling , (2), 40-42. Yafei, J. (2024). Psychological Entitlement and Behavioral Outcomes: An Integrated Model in Beijing’s Service Sector. Journal of Digitainability, Realism & Mastery (DREAM), 3(10), 141–155. https://doi.org/10.56982/dream.v3i10.272 Ying Xie, Shaoen Wu and Sumit Chakravarty. 2023. AI Meets AI: Artificial Intelligence and Academic Integrity: A Survey on Mitigating AI-Assisted Cheating in Computing Education. In The 24th Annual Conference on Information Technology Education (SIGITE '23) , October 11-14, 2023, Marietta, GA, USA. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 7 Pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3585059.3611449 Zaheer, H., Karim, J., & Bibi, Z. (2022). Actions Dictate the Consequences: Workplace Incivility, Knowledge Hiding, and Psychological Entitlement. Journal of Business and Social Review in Emerging Economies , 8(1), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.26710/jbsee.v8i1.2114 Tables Table 1 Questionnaire’s Cronbach Alpha value N of cases N of items Cronbach’ s α coefficient 121 6 0.79 Table 2 Questionnaire’s KMO value Items factor1 communality Have you ever cheated on an AI assisted language test? 0.800 0.639 Do you think you have psychological entitlement? 0.789 0.623 Would you consider cheating in an AI assisted language test because you have psychological entitlement ? 0.824 0.679 Would it be easier for you to consider cheating if you had psychological entitlement? 0.811 0.657 Do you think psychological entitlement increases the likelihood of cheating in remote language tests? 0.719 0.517 Do you think psychological entitlement affects the moral evaluation of cheating? 0.256 0.066 KMO value 0.766 - Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviews received at journal 20 Nov, 2025 Editorial decision: Revision requested 14 Nov, 2025 Reviews received at journal 13 Nov, 2025 Reviews received at journal 10 Nov, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 29 Oct, 2025 Reviews received at journal 24 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 21 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 21 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 21 Oct, 2025 Reviews received at journal 03 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 28 Sep, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 26 Sep, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 26 Sep, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 17 Sep, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 12 Aug, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 12 Aug, 2025 First submitted to journal 06 Aug, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7311807","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":520258910,"identity":"37980cef-2888-444b-870b-dbd0e560b863","order_by":0,"name":"Yidan Gao","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Shanghai International Studies University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yidan","middleName":"","lastName":"Gao","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-08-06 16:38:14","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7311807/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7311807/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":92289405,"identity":"aeb6405c-977e-49c1-a61a-e0a32f8fff4f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-26 20:36:40","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":45821,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"TheInfluenceofPsychologicalEntitlementanonimous1.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7311807/v1/8c4141735ad3f8dc17d58708.docx"},{"id":92289457,"identity":"b62da2ef-5ed6-42ad-80b3-d36b63d558a8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-26 20:36:44","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":3084,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"53442103191a46ba9bcfaea7517d214e.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7311807/v1/c6640c4db47dff44658e61b5.json"},{"id":92289366,"identity":"2ba5fb14-0372-4a1c-9098-4b0bf1218a6b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-26 20:36:38","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":106826,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"53442103191a46ba9bcfaea7517d214e1enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7311807/v1/66069ad0b91963dd1e3beeda.xml"},{"id":92289441,"identity":"d108e2b6-4934-409e-b5b1-a2282b662917","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-26 20:36:43","extension":"xml","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":102864,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"53442103191a46ba9bcfaea7517d214e1structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7311807/v1/cfd431f93792f68391c17031.xml"},{"id":92289421,"identity":"8d0eb658-43a0-4649-b4b2-293586ea4d44","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-26 20:36:41","extension":"html","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":114145,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7311807/v1/472b8319d0b5ec19bfb1e624.html"},{"id":92289568,"identity":"da82efaf-1525-411d-a750-3c06de08c49f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-26 20:36:51","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":747252,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7311807/v1/07b7d3b2-46b5-4bb6-9fed-229e12c018bf.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"The Influence of Psychological Entitlement on Cheating in AI-assisted language assessment and Its Countermeasures","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eWith the widespread application of AI technology in the field of language testing (Biju et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Rahman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Shamsuddinova et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), such as IELTS computer-based tests, TOEFL iBT Speaking Section, and China's College English Test Band 4 and Band 6 online exams, cheating phenomena in various AI-assisted language assessments have become more covert (Benaissa et al., 2025; Wu et al., 2023). Students from Jiangxi Branch of China Mobile used AI tools to generate text or translate it without citation to gain an improper advantage. (Chan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn AI-assisted language assessment, \"Cheating\" refers to students' improper use of AI tools to gain unfair advantages. Violations of academic integrity (Ozer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) (Kutbi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Trabelsi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Lee et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). This kind of behavior may include but is not limited to the following forms: First, using AI to generate content and posing as original: Students may use AI tools such as ChatGPT to generate papers, assignments or exam answers. Then submit it as one's own original work (Bin-Nashwan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Pudasaini et al., 2024; Gruenhagen et al., 2024). This kind of behavior directly violates academic integrity because students do not make the due efforts to complete the assignments (Kutbi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Second, unauthorized AI assistance: Even if students are allowed to use AI tools, if they overly rely on AI without engaging in critical thinking and completing assignments independently, it may also constitute cheating (Chan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). For example, students might use AI to generate the first draft of an article, but submit it directly without making sufficient revisions and polishing (Wang, 2024; Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Third, contract cheating: Students may entrust others or AI services to complete assignments through payment or other means, and then submit them as their own works (Kutbi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Gaumann \u0026amp; Veale, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). This kind of behavior seriously undermines the fairness of academic assessment because students do not truly master the knowledge they have learned (Kutbi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Fourth, AI plagiarism: Students may use AI tools to copy and paste content from various sources without correct citation (Sozon et al., 2024). This includes direct copying, post-translation copying or slightly modified copying (Chan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Cheating behavior undermines the fundamental purpose of education, which is to cultivate students' knowledge and skills (Wu et al., 2023). If students obtain high scores through cheating, they may not truly master what they have learned, thereby affecting their future studies and career development (Sozon et al., 2024). Cheating puts honest students at a disadvantage because they need to make more efforts to achieve the same grades as cheaters (Wu et al., 2023). This will reduce students' trust in academic assessment and may lead to unfair results (Kutbi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). If cheating is widespread, the reputation of academic institutions may be damaged (Sozon et al., 2024). Employers and society may be skeptical of the graduates of this institution, considering their abilities and knowledge unreliable (Wu et al., 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePsychological entitlement is one of the factors influencing college students' cheating behavior and the underlying mechanisms (Ji, 2024). It refers to an individual's subjective belief that they have the right to enjoy special treatment and be exempted from responsibilities (Laird et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Individuals holding this belief tend to view rules as \"restrictions\" rather than fair criteria. Think that one deserves more treatment (such as respect, resources, privileges, etc.) without putting in the corresponding effort or assuming responsibility. (Ji, 2024). when these expectations exceed an individual's actual abilities. This belief may lead to a series of unethical behaviors in the workplace and academic environment (Zaheer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Stiles et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Thomason \u0026amp; Brownlee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). such as cheating to achieve higher grades.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo provide theoretical and empirical support for reducing college students' cheating behavior and deal with the new challenges brought by AI And cultivate students' sense of responsibility for academic integrity (Shaayesteh et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Trabelsi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). This paper aims to explore the influence of psychological privilege on cheating behavior in AI-assisted language assessment and study the corresponding countermeasures. Specifically, this article will explore the following several core issues: 1. How does psychological privilege affect students' willingness and behavior to cheat in AI-assisted language assessment? 2. What factors can exacerbate or mitigate the impact of psychological privilege on cheating behavior? 3. What countermeasures can be taken to prevent and deal with cheating in AI-assisted language assessment, thereby maintaining academic integrity?\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Literature review","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eConcept and Measurement of Psychological Entitlement\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe concept of psychological entitlement was born out of research on the sense of entitlement and narcissistic behavior, but previous studies often conflated the concepts of psychological entitlement and the sense of entitlement. The sense of entitlement refers to a series of attitudes regarding what people think they are entitled to and what they can expect from others (Bai Baoyu, Sun Runsong, Hu Qiao, et al., 2017). According to Tolmacz and Mikulincer (2011), the sense of entitlement includes three types: first is the normal adaptive sense of entitlement, that is, being able to objectively assess what one is entitled to or has a right to expect from others; second is the inhibited sense of entitlement, that is, individuals lack confidence in their right to have certain rights or meet certain needs; third is the excessive or exaggerated sense of entitlement, that is, individuals\u0026apos; expectations or evaluations of what they should receive far exceed what they are entitled to. It is the pathological level of the sense of entitlement, namely an exaggerated sense of entitlement, that is often associated with negative outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIndividuals with higher psychological entitlement tend to have higher self-centered tendencies, they tend to prioritize their own needs and interests over others, and are more likely to experience negative emotions such as anger and resentment when facing setbacks or adverse situations (Dreiling, 2015). In terms of measuring psychological entitlement, the Psychological Entitlement Scale (Psychological Entitlement Scale) developed by Campbell (Campbell) (2004) and others is widely used. This scale evaluates an individual\u0026apos;s level of psychological entitlement in different situations through 9 items, and has high reliability and validity, and is widely used in psychological and social science research (Rothman \u0026amp; Steil, 2012).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHigh levels of psychological entitlement are linked to higher self-centeredness. Individuals with high entitlement often prioritize their own needs over others and are more likely to experience negative emotions when faced with challenges (Dreiling, 2015). Research indicates that psychological entitlement plays a significant role in educational settings. For example, Wang Zhou and Bian Qian (2011) found that students who cannot achieve success goals defined by society may resort to accumulating wealth through public power to relieve tension. Manal Eltayeb Mohamed Idris (2025) explored the complex relationship between shades of meaning and polysemy in English and Arabic translation. The study highlighted the influence of psychological entitlement in these processes.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith the advent of AI technology, psychological entitlement has gained attention in language translation and teaching. Li and Huang (2025) designed an intelligent grading system for college English translation based on big data technology. The use of AI in legal translation presents ethical risks. Wang (2025) discussed the potential moral dilemmas and copyright issues associated with generative AI translation technologies. Zhou and Hou (2025) examined how EFL teachers utilize AI tools in language instruction. Their findings suggest that AI can enhance teaching quality and student engagement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe present review has explored the concept, measurement, and implications of psychological entitlement in various fields, including education, business, and cross-cultural studies. It indicates that psychological entitlement is a multi-dimensional and complex psychological phenomenon, which has important application value and research significance in education, career, and cross-cultural communication.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCharacteristics and Development Status of AI-Assisted Language Assessments\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAI-assisted language assessments are innovative testing methods that leverage artificial intelligence technology, which has the characteristics of efficiency, objectivity, flexibility, etc. (Ashutosh Nayak, \u0026amp; Ashwin Aravindakshan Nair, 2025). It integrates a variety of technical means such as natural language processing, speech recognition and machine learning, and can realize multi-dimensional and all-round evaluation of candidates\u0026apos; language ability. AI-assisted language examinations can generate random test questions and provide objective scoring. This eliminates the biases associated with human examiners, ensuring a more equitable evaluation process. Moreover, it has flexible test time, more objective and accurate scoring, and provides personalized feedback. Students can take the exam at their own pace, and the system can adapt to individual learning styles and proficiency levels.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhat\u0026rsquo;s more, AI systems can also achieve the goals of high reliability and cost-effectiveness of the examination system since it can detect cheating through technical means, such as identifying copying or other forms of academic dishonesty. This feature enhances the credibility of the examination process.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn order to prevent students from cheating in the exam, the AI-assisted language examination system intelligently judges whether there is cheating (copying other files as answers) through technical means, and displays it in the marking analysis, thus improving the credibility of the exam. At present, AI-assisted language examinations have been applied in various English proficiency tests, including IELTS and TOEFL. For instance, the oral part of the IELTS machine examination uses intelligent speech recognition technology for scoring (Zhou, \u0026amp; \u0026nbsp;Hou, 2025). Studies have explored the application of AI in translating Arabic text into English, highlighting the complexities involved in maintaining meaning and context during translation. These studies underscore the importance of cultural sensitivity in AI-assisted language examinations (Gao, \u0026amp; \u0026nbsp;La, 2025).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe use of AI in language translation and testing raises several ethical concerns, particularly regarding copyright issues and the potential misuse of generated content. Researchers are actively exploring ways to address these challenges while maximizing the benefits of AI technology (Mark Tutton, \u0026amp; Doron Cohen, 2025). However, with the expansion of its application range, the problem of cheating has gradually emerged, which needs to be further explored from the education sector and all sectors of society.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eInfluencing Factors of Assessment Cheating\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResearch on cheating in assessments has gradually increased, covering various aspects such as its influencing factors, consequences, and countermeasures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eZhou Xia (2015) conducted a survey and analysis of the frequency of cheating among college students using a stratified three-stage sampling method. The study found that individual factors such as moral concepts, personality traits, and learning motivation can influence students\u0026apos; cheating behavior. Additionally, family factors like parental education methods and expectations, school factors such as examination systems and teacher supervision, and social factors including societal attitudes and the cost of cheating also play a significant role in students\u0026apos; decisions to cheat.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eYe Lei (2014) discussed the methods used to punish cheating in exams, specifically questioning the appropriateness of the \u0026quot;free shipping\u0026quot; approach. He argued that this method might have negative repercussions for students and emphasized the need for more reasonable and humane disciplinary actions. Yue Yu (2011) examined the legality of expelling students for cheating in English exams. While acknowledging that expulsion is a severe punishment, he highlighted the need for further exploration and regulation regarding its legality.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGong Yanping and Qin Hongxia (2010) pondered the issue of cheating and counteracting it in College English Test Level Four exams. They proposed several anti-cheating strategies, such as strengthening invigilation, improving technological measures, and enhancing moral education among students, to effectively curb cheating behavior. Maite Correa (2014) discussed the dilemma faced by editors in modern language instruction in her article \u0026quot;The editor dilemma in modern language instruction: Is tutoring out of control?\u0026quot; Although this work does not directly address exam cheating, it delves into the boundaries and consequences of academic misconduct.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, cheating in exams is complex involving multiple factors. This study intends to investigate whether psychological entitlement has an impact on students cheating in AI assisted language assessments and what are the causes of psychological entitlement that lead to cheating in examinations. If psychological entitlement has an impact on exam cheating, what measures should those involved in language education take to counteract exam cheating? It explores how to use various methods to effectively prevent and reduce cheating while ensuring the fairness.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study adopts a combination of questionnaire survey and interview methods, targeting English major students at a university in Central China. All participants provided written informed consent prior to participation, confirming their understanding of the study purpose and data usage. This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. While the university does not operate an Institutional Review Board, the study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Departmental Research Ethics Panel of the School of Foreign Languages, \u0026times;\u0026times; University (Ref. FL-2023-01).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eProcedures \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirstly, data is collected through a questionnaire to understand the students\u0026apos; levels of psychological entitlement, their attitudes towards AI-assisted language examinations, and their cheating behaviors during exams. Secondly, interviews are conducted with selected representative students to deeply explore the mechanisms through which psychological entitlement affects their cheating behaviors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA random sampling method was employed to select 121 students from English majors. This research was sent to each student aged 21-22. These students have all participated in AI-assisted English exams, such as mock College English Test Band 4 and Band 6 computer-based tests or other internal online English assessments, to ensure they have some understanding and experience of AI-assisted language examinations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eQuestionnaire\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn this research, the questionnaire named The Influence of Psychological Entitlement on Cheating in AI assisted language examination and its Countermeasures is delivered on the website Questioning Star APP. This questionnaire consists of and the data was analyzed using SPSS.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe questionnaire consists of several parts as follows: first, psychological entitlement scale: Using an existing psychological entitlement scale, with a total of 10 items, that is 6 single choice questions and 4 multiple choice questions. A Likert 5-point scale is adopted for scoring (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), with a higher score indicating a higher level of psychological entitlement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecond, AI-assisted language assessement attitude questionnaire. This self-compiled questionnaire with 6 items, covering students\u0026apos; recognition, difficulty perception, and fairness evaluation of AI-assisted language assessment. The Likert 5-point scale is also employed for scoring.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThird, exam cheating behavior questionnaire. Referencing previous questionnaire designs for exam cheating behavior research and combining the characteristics of AI-assisted language assessments, we developed 3 items. The questionnaire asks whether students have engaged in cheating behaviors during their most recent AI-assisted language assessment (such as using unauthorized software or devices to cheat, plagiarizing online materials, etc.). If there was any cheating behavior, further questions are asked about the methods and reasons behind it.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eInterview\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on the research objectives and the results of the questionnaire survey, we formulated a semi-structured interview outline. The interview outline mainly includes the following questions:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHave you engaged in cheating behavior during AI-assisted language assessments? If so, could you describe the situation in detail? What factors influenced your decision to cheat during the exam? What role did psychological entitlement play? What suggestions do you have for schools and teachers in preventing cheating in AI-assisted language assessments?\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results and Data Analysis","content":"\u003ch2\u003eThe reliability and credibility of the questionnaire\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn this study, a 7-point Likert scale was used for the questionnaire survey. The reliability analysis of the questionnaire showed that the items of the questionnaire had high internal consistency (Cronbach\u0026apos;s alpha = 0.79) (Table 1). Table 1 is available here.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnalyzing the KMO value (Table 2). If the value is between 0.7 and 0.8, it indicates that the research data is suitable for extracting information. If the value is between 0.6 and 0.7, it means that the study data is suitable for this research. In the present questionnaire, the KMO value is 0.766, greater than 0.7 which shows that it is very suitable for factor analysis. The sphericity test indicated a significant value of 0.00\u0026lt;0.05. Therefore, the questionnaire has high construct validity. For each independent scale, the evaluation values of each question were summed and then divided by the number of questions to obtain the mean, which represents self-efficacy. SPSS 26.0 was employed to conduct correlation analysis (Pearson\u0026apos;s correlation coefficient) and independent samples t-tests on the collected data. Table 2 is available here.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe validity test uses exploratory factor analysis and principal component analysis to extract 6 common factors. The absolute value of factor load of all questions in the questionnaire is greater than 0.5 and there is no component interspersed. These factors are:（1）have you ever cheated on a AI assisted language test ?(2) Do you think you have psychological entitlement? (3) Would you consider cheating in a AI assisted language test because you have psychological entitlement? (4) Would it be easier for you to consider cheating if you had psychological entitlement? (5) Do you think psychological entitlement increases the likelihood of cheating in remote language tests? (6) Do you think psychological entitlement affects the moral evaluation of cheating?\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccording to the results of 121 online electronic questionnaires, with 51.24% and 35.54% of the respondents saying that cheating in AI assisted exams is definitely and probably affected by psychological entitlement, respectively, we can answer the question \u0026ldquo;Does psychological entitlement have an impact on students cheating in AI assisted language assessments? \u0026rdquo; The psychological has an important impact on cheating in AI assisted language assessments.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eWith the spread of AI assisted learning, more and more exams are being conducted online. However, cheating occurs in online examinations and there are significant problems with the reliability and quality of the examinations. According to the results of the 121 online e-questionnaires distributed by the author, more than half of the students (78.51%) admitted to having cheated in AI assisted language examinations. This situation indicates that the current situation of dishonest behaviors in AI assisted tests is serious.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2 id=\"_Toc5871\"\u003ePsychological Entitlement as an Important Factor in Language assessment Cheating \u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIt has been shown that individuals with high psychological entitlement exhibit more cheating-related behaviors. Cheating is a classic form of deceptive behaviour and is more common in student compared to other cheating behaviors(Sun, 2022). The irrational belief in psychological entitlement, which makes individuals more narcissistic, can also lead to a lower sense of social responsibility, which is closely related to the reasons why students cheat. In addition to this, Grubbs and Exline (2016) proposed a multi-path model to explain the ways in which psychological entitlement leads to various undesirable behaviors and psychological distress. The model suggests that psychological entitlement consists of three core concepts, namely exaggerated expectations, a sense of entitlement and the notion of self-particularity. Individuals with high levels of psychological entitlement have exaggerated expectations, and the expectations they have are not always met. When some expectations are not met, the psychologically lost reaction further reinforces the individual\u0026rsquo;s psychological entitlement, thus creating a vicious circle(Greenberger E, Lessard J, Chen C, et al., 2008).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, students\u0026rsquo; psychological entitlement is closely related to student consumerism. Student consumerism refers to the idea that because students are paying for their education, they should be treated as customers in the true sense of the word. Achacoso (2006) proposed that students\u0026rsquo; consumerism psychology is reflected in two dimensions: belief in rights and behavior of rights. The former is defined as the belief that students can achieve high grades without much effort; The latter is defined as the student\u0026rsquo;s right to argue with the teacher and demand a higher grade. Although not all students hold this view, those who display this sense of entitlement occupy a great deal of the time and energy of teachers and education administrators.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCauses of Psychological Entitlement That Leads to Language assessment Cheating\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe seventh question（multiple choice）in this questionnaire explored the causes of psychological entitlement that lead to cheating in AI assisted examinations. Respondents identified three categories of causes for the psychological entitlement of cheating on exams. The first category was the factor of parental nurturing style. 80.99% of students thought it was due to parents being so negligent that their children did not develop the entitlement values. Also 90.08% believed that it was due to parents having too high expectations. The second category was due to school management, with 70.31% believing it was due to the school tolerating students\u0026rsquo; deviant behaviour. In the third category, 78.51% and 94.21% thought it was due to social factors such as one-child policy and the pressure to achieve high grades respectively.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParental nurturing style is the first cause. Greenberg et al. (2008) specifically studied the role of parents and families in the formation of students\u0026rsquo; psychological rights. They used a systematic approach to study psychological entitlement. Their study found that when parents compared their children to other peers, they put pressure on their own children to achieve more, causing these children to have higher rates of achievement anxiety and motivation to cheat than their peers. Parents who have high expectations for their children\u0026rsquo;s achievement see achieving high academic achievement as a mechanism to motivate or guide their children towards excellence. \u0026ldquo;You should be better than your friends at school\u0026rdquo; , \u0026ldquo;Your cousin is a very famous student.\u0026rdquo; In this family circumstance, it is likely that cheating will become a coping mechanism for these children to achieve the academic goals expected of them by their parents.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, when parents overindulge their children, they may be overly controlling of their children\u0026rsquo;s activities and daily behaviour. This type of over-involved parenting may also cause more pain and stress for the child, making the child selfish, demanding and psychologically more entitled.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhat\u0026rsquo;s more, parents\u0026rsquo; non-responsiveness to questions posed by their children in the family environment as well as negative answers affect the level of psychological entitlement of their children (Magaro and Weisz, 2006). When adolescents grow up through a series of negative experiences, after not receiving enough care and understanding from their parents, it may lead to individuals believing that they deserve better than others to make up for their shortcomings (Shao, Zhu, Jian，2018).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe second category is school factors. 70.31% students believed that it was because the school tolerated cheating by individual students that led to students developing psychological entitlement and cheating in examinations. This thesis speculates that there are two main reasons for this.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirstly, the rise of for-profit online language education has driven a proliferation of language education options, meaning that students have a lot of choice in their language learning pursuits. If not satisfied with the teacher or service, students can easily choose to continue their language education elsewhere. This has slowly forced providers to compete for students, as online language education providers rely on tuition as their main form of income. They even treat students like customers in order to attract and retain them.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecondly, the policy of anonymous assessment by teachers is also an important factor in the increase of academic entitlement for students. According to a survey of 127 teachers in American universities conducted by Keith Spiegel et al., 77% of teachers think that dealing with cheating is a very tedious and difficult task. The main reasons why teachers ignore cheating are the anxiety and pressure of dealing with cheating cases in the absence of evidence of cheating, and the fear of retaliation and accusations from students.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe third category is social factors. 78.51% of the respondents believed that the one-child policy was the reason for students cheating. Almost all (94.21%) believed that too much pressure to study leads to students developing psychological entitlement and causes them to cheat in exams. The behaviour of parents and teachers constantly reinforces the students\u0026rsquo; sense of psychological entitlement. In order to meet their parents\u0026rsquo; high expectations of their students\u0026rsquo; academic performance, this generation of students often cheats in order to gain instant gratification. They do not really sink their teeth into gaining knowledge and real grades in their studies (Ebele and Olofu, 2017).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eCountermeasures\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn response to the question \u0026ldquo;What measures should be proposed to reduce the psychological entitlement of students in order to solve the problem of cheating in AI assisted language examinations\u0026rdquo;, the responses were divided into three main areas. Firstly, 90.08% said that schools should improve their monitoring mechanisms for AI assisted learning exams so that students with a high sense of psychological entitlement cannot cheat in exams and move from \u0026ldquo;having to cheat\u0026rdquo; to \u0026ldquo;not being able to cheat\u0026rdquo;. Secondly, 87.6% believe that language teachers can also protect students from psychological entitlement by improving teaching styles and engaging students in active learning. The third strategy is in the area of parenting. 89.26.% believe that parents should adopt a warm parenting approach to help students develop the right moral and examination values. They should start from the subjective reasons why students are psychologically entitled to cheat in exams, so as to reduce their sense of psychological entitlement and change from \u0026ldquo;wanting to cheat\u0026rdquo; to \u0026ldquo;not wanting to cheat\u0026rdquo;. Specific countermeasures are as follows.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEnhancing the Students\u0026rsquo; Sense of Integrity and Moral Values\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirstly, from the school\u0026rsquo;s point of view, it is important to establish a system of integrity for students from the moment they enter the school, which will follow them throughout their studies and even into their working lives. This is essential not only in the field of education but also in the social life of the student. By making integrity a measurable factor in the evaluation of each individual\u0026rsquo;s personality, it will create an invisible constraint on students\u0026rsquo; behaviour during examinations, which will also help them indirectly to develop a sense of integrity in examinations. At the same time, schools can also set up some honesty education classes to help students gain the sense of moral shame, which refers to a self-directed painful experience based on the concept of right and wrong, good and evil, honor and disgrace when an individual violates moral concepts or feels incompetent.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSetting Reasonable Goals and Plans to Relieve Students\u0026rsquo; Stress\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCheating in AI assisted language tests is most likely because students want to get good grades rather than invest too much in language learning. Language educators should motivate students to study hard, guide them to understand the meaning of learning, help them to buckle up for the first time in their lives and encourage them to become fighters. Students should be motivated to study hard and learn so that they see learning in the right light, understanding that they are learning not for others but for themselves, for their future in society and for the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParents are not only material providers for their children, but also psychological supporters and spiritual providers for their children. Parents should adopt a warm and understanding approach to parenting, so that children feel loved, supported and accompanied by their parents (Holt, 2010). Apart from this, parents should not interfere too much in their children\u0026rsquo;s lives as children often want to be independent. And capable parents should take the initiative to learn how to raise children and get the right way to raise children (Miller, Petrie, and Bigler, 2013). Parents should set reasonable expectations and focus on the process rather than the outcome.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmotional factors can hinder or accelerate language acquisition. True language acquisition can only be achieved under optimal emotional conditions (Fangfang Xie, 2023). Anxiety is one of these emotional factors, and language performance anxiety affects the learner\u0026rsquo;s learning process. This is why moderate parental expectations are more helpful in promoting children\u0026rsquo;s language learning. While grades are not the only measure of learning effectiveness. Parents should actively guide their children to form good study habits and attitudes. In this way, children can acquire the right values and reduce the chances of their children developing psychological entitlement sense.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eReforming of the Language Examination Format \u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTeachers scientifically evaluate students\u0026rsquo; learning process, learning ability and learning effectiveness, and continuously guide students to give full play to their learning potential. Students\u0026rsquo; learning process is evaluated objectively and comprehensively. It enables students to feel a sense of achievement and enhances self-confidence, which can effectively alleviate the anxiety caused by language learning. Schools should not impose a rigid teaching schedule, but focus on student mastery. At the same time, teachers can change the form of assessment, not necessarily by closed book, but also by combining a large essay with a diversified assessment that tests not only students\u0026rsquo; knowledge but also their ability to use their language knowledge to analyze and solve problems, such as closed book, open book, semi-open book tests, oral examinations and small designs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eEnhancing the Language Class Experience\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTeaching should make full use of changes such as the flipped classroom to involve students in the process of teaching and learning. The traditional \u0026ldquo;indoctrination\u0026rdquo; mode of teaching should be transformed into an interactive one. Participatory learning is adopted. Teachers warm up the classroom atmosphere, such as making appropriate pauses in the lecture process to provide students with time for reflection, or asking questions to encourage students to have free discussion, drawing as many students as possible into the interactive situation, and fully respecting students\u0026rsquo; desire for expression.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom the students\u0026rsquo; point of view, the teaching method is clearly different from that of the traditional classroom and is more innovative and interesting. This helps to gradually build a harmonious, trusting and positive atmosphere in the language classroom and to continuously increase students\u0026rsquo; motivation for language learning. Increasing students\u0026rsquo; interest in language learning provides a good basis for current student achievement and for future learning in related subjects.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eSchools Taking Measures to Curb Examinees\u0026rsquo; Cheating\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe first measure is browser identity verification. Obtaining and modifying the User-Agent of the browser called by the client, and the server side verifies whether the browser accessing the examination system is based on the specified client by verifying the User-Agent, so as to prevent candidates from accessing the examination system through ordinary browsers and circumventing the control of the examination system.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecondly, automatic disconnection from the test server can be added at the same time. If a candidate wants to find a question that they \u0026ldquo;can\u0026rsquo;t do\u0026rdquo; through another program on their computer, everything changes to another window and then switches back to the window where the exam system is located, the window where the exam system is located has been disconnected from the server and the candidate can only log in again through the address where the exam server is located and can enter the test system again to take the test and the content of the previous test is no longer there so that the test taker will not be able to switch optionally the current test page during the test.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThirdly, in order to prevent candidates from matching each other\u0026rsquo;s questions, the system is designed with the function of randomly drawing questions, after entering the examination system, candidates will randomly draw questions before the examination and then display them on the screen.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study investigated the impact of psychological entitlement on cheating in AI assisted language assessments, revealing a significant correlation between entitlement and academic dishonesty. Through a questionnaire survey of 121 students, the research found that psychological entitlement is identified as a key contributing factor. Students with high entitlement displayed a sense of deservingness, believing they could achieve academic success without effort, leading to increased cheating tendencies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe findings highlight three critical causes: (1) family influences, such as parental neglect or unrealistic expectations; (2) school policies, including tolerance of misconduct and grade inflation; and (3) social pressures, such as the one-child policy and academic competition. These factors collectively foster a mindset where cheating is normalized as a shortcut to meet external demands.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo address this, the study proposes multifaceted countermeasures: enhancing integrity education, adopting process-based assessments, improving remote proctoring technologies (e.g., browser verification, random question generation), and promoting parental guidance to cultivate realistic expectations. These strategies aim to shift students from \"wanting to cheat\" to \"choosing not to cheat,\" fostering ethical behavior and academic accountability.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe research contributes theoretically by contextualizing psychological entitlement within Chinese educational and cultural frameworks, extending Western theories to an Eastern context. Practically, it provides actionable insights for educators and policymakers to design interventions that mitigate cheating in digital learning environments. However, limitations include the reliance on self-report data and a single university sample, suggesting future studies should adopt longitudinal designs and diverse populations to generalize findings.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClinical trial number\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and received approval from the Ethics Review Committee of the School of Foreign Languages of Nanchang Hangkong University, China. Permission for data collection was granted by the administration of the participating institution.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable. This manuscript does not contain any individual person\u0026rsquo;s data in any form.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNo funding was received for this study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eYidan Gao wrote the main manuscript text, prepared figures, reviewed the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAchacoso, M. V. (2006). \u0026quot;What do you mean my grade is not an A?\u0026quot;: An investigation of academic entitlement, causal attributions, and self-regulation in college students. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAshutosh Nayak, \u0026amp; Ashwin Aravindakshan Nair. (2025). Language translation effects in Chatbots: Evidence from a randomized field experiment on a mobile commerce platform. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Research\u003c/em\u003e, 190, 115158-115158.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBai Baoyu, Sun Runsong, Hu Qiao, et al. (2017). Psychological entitlement: Concept, measurement, and related research. \u003cem\u003eAdvances in Psychological Science\u003c/em\u003e, 25(6), 127-137.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBiju, N., Abdelrasheed, N. S. G., Bakiyeva, K., Prasad, K. D. V., \u0026amp; Jember, B. (2024). Which one? AI-assisted language assessment or paper format: an exploration of the impacts on foreign language anxiety, learning attitudes, motivation, and writing performance.\u003cem\u003e Language Testing \u003c/em\u003ein Asia, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-024-00322-z\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBin-Nashwan, S. A., Sadallah, M., \u0026amp; Bouteraa, M. (2023). Use of ChatGPT in academia: Academic integrity hangs in the balance. Technology in Society, 75, 102370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102370\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBretag, Tracey. (2016). \u003cem\u003eHandbook of Academic Integrity | Perspectives on Academic Integrity in Colombia and Latin America\u003c/em\u003e. 2016: 162.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCain, J., Romanelli, F., \u0026amp; Smith, K. M. (2012). Academic Entitlement in Pharmacy Education. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Pharmaceutical Education,\u003c/em\u003e 76(10), 1.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCampbell, K. (2004). Measuring psychological entitlement. J\u003cem\u003eournal of Personality Assessment\u003c/em\u003e, 86(1), 1-11.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCampbell, W. K., Bonacci, A. M., Shelton, J., Exline, J. J., \u0026amp; Bushman, B. J. (2004). Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-report measure. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality Assessment\u003c/em\u003e, 83(1), 29\u0026ndash;45.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChan, C. K. Y. (2024). Students\u0026rsquo; perceptions of \u0026lsquo;AI-giarism\u0026rsquo;: investigating changes in understandings of academic misconduct. \u003cem\u003eEducation and Information Technologies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(6), 8087\u0026ndash;8108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13151-7\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChangyin Zhou, \u0026amp; Fanfan Hou. (2025). How do EFL teachers utilize AI tools in their language teaching?\u003cem\u003e Theory and Practice in Language Studies\u003c/em\u003e, 15(2), 403-413.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDonny Jackson. (2025). Intrado unveils plans to streamline 911 translation with AI. Urgent Communications.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDreiling, E. A. (2015). The interrelationships among perceived parenting styles, psychological entitlement, and subjective well-being.\u003cem\u003e Dissertations \u0026amp; Theses - Gradworks.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEbele, U. F., \u0026amp; Olofu, P. A. (2017). Study Habit and Its Impact on Secondary School Students Academic Performance in Biology in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. \u003cem\u003eEducational Research and Reviews\u003c/em\u003e, 12(10), 584.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGaumann, N., \u0026amp; Veale, M. (2024). AI providers as criminal essay mills? Large language models meet contract cheating law. Information \u0026amp;amp; Communications Technology Law, 33(3), 276\u0026ndash;309. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2024.2352692\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGreenberger, E., Lessard, J., Chen, C., \u0026amp; Farruggia, S. P. (2008). Self-entitled college students: Contributions of personality, parenting, and motivational factors. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Youth \u0026amp; Adolescence\u003c/em\u003e, 37(10), 1193-1204.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrubbs, J. B., \u0026amp; Exline, J. J. (2016). Trait entitlement: A cognitive-personality source of vulnerability to psychological distress. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e, 142(11), 1204\u0026ndash;1226.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHolt, A. (2010). Managing \u0026ldquo;Spoiled Identities\u0026rdquo;: Parents\u0026rsquo; experiences of compulsory parenting support programmes. \u003cem\u003eChildren \u0026amp; Society\u003c/em\u003e (5), 414.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHuang Feng, Zhang Shasha, He Qingqing. (2022). The influence of psychological entitlement on college students\u0026apos; cheating behaviors: A moderated mediation model.\u003cem\u003e Journal of Hefei Teachers College\u003c/em\u003e, 40(03), 34.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKutbi, M., Al-Hoorie, A. H., \u0026amp; Al-Shammari, A. H. (2024). Detecting contract cheating through linguistic fingerprint. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03160-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLaird, M. D., Harvey, P., Lancaster, J. Accountability, entitlement, tenure, and satisfaction in Generation Y . \u003cem\u003eJournal of Managerial Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, 2015, 30(1): 87-100.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee, V. R., Pope, D., Miles, S., \u0026amp; Z\u0026aacute;rate, R. C. (2024). Cheating in the age of generative AI: A high school survey study of cheating behaviors before and after the release of ChatGPT. \u003cem\u003eComputers and Education: Artificial Intelligence\u003c/em\u003e, 7, 100253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100253\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMagaro, M. M., \u0026amp; Weisz, J. R. (2006). Perceived Control Mediates the Relation Between Parental Rejection and Youth Depression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 2006(6), 868.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMark Tutton \u0026amp; Doron Cohen. (2025). Reconceptualizing the role of the university language teacher in light of generative AI. \u003cem\u003eEducation Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, 15(1), 56-56.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMiller, M. J., Petrie, J. A., Bigler, E. D., et al. (2013). Comprehensive Assessment of Child and Adolescent Memory: The Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning, the Test of Memory and Learning, and the California Verbal Learning Test-Children\u0026rsquo;s Version. John Wiley \u0026amp; Sons, Ltd: chapter 15, 89.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMohamed, B., Attou, Y., Seddik, M., \u0026amp; Abdelhamid, N. (2025). From Chatting to Cheating: How Can Ethical Considerations Be Ensured in this AI-Driven Research Era? International Journal of Language and Literary Studies, 7(1), 287\u0026ndash;297. https://doi.org/10.36892/ijlls.v7i1.1996\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOzer, O. (2024). AI language models: A breach of academic integrity in online language learning? Studies in Language Assessment, 237\u0026ndash;262. https://doi.org/10.58379/ezys5680\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePrainsack, B., \u0026amp; Forg\u0026oacute;, N. (2024). New AI regulation in the EU seeks to reduce risk without assessing public benefit. Nature Medicine, 30(5), 1235\u0026ndash;1237. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-02874-2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRahman, A., Raj, A., Tomy, P., \u0026amp; Hameed, M. S. (2024). A comprehensive bibliometric and content analysis of artificial intelligence in language learning: tracing between the years 2017 and 2023. \u003cem\u003eArtificial Intelligence Review\u003c/em\u003e, 57(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-023-10643-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRothman, A. M., \u0026amp; Steil, J. M. (2012). Adolescent attachment and entitlement in a world of wealth. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Infant Child \u0026amp; Adolescent Psychotherapy\u003c/em\u003e, 11(1), 53-65.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSaheb, T., \u0026amp; Saheb, T. (2024). Mapping Ethical Artificial Intelligence Policy Landscape: A Mixed Method Analysis. \u003cem\u003eScience and Engineering Ethics\u003c/em\u003e, 30(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-024-00472-6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShaayesteh, M. T., Esfahani, S. M., \u0026amp; Mohit, H. (2025). AI Identity, Empowerment, and Mindfulness in Mitigating Unethical AI Use (Version 2). arXiv. https://doi.org/ 10.48550/ARXIV.2503.20099\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShamsuddinova, S., Heryani, P., \u0026amp; Naval, M. A. (2024). Evolution to revolution: Critical exploration of educators\u0026rsquo; perceptions of the impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on the teaching and learning process in the GCC region.\u003cem\u003e International Journal of Educational Research\u003c/em\u003e, 125, 102326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2024.102326\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShao Zhu, Jian. (2018). Research on the guidance mechanism of public opinion in colleges and universities in the micro era. \u003cem\u003eCampus English\u003c/em\u003e (2), 1.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStiles, B. L., Wong, N. C. W., \u0026amp; LaBeff, E. E. (2017). College Cheating Thirty Years Later: The Role of Academic Entitlement. Deviant Behavior, 39(7), 823\u0026ndash;834. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2017.1335520\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSun Jingtong. (2022). The relationship between parenting style, self-esteem, sense of purpose in life, and learning engagement among high school students. Harbin Normal University: 59.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThomason, S., \u0026amp; Brownlee, A. (2018). Ethical Decision Making and Psychological Entitlement. Business and Society Review, 123(4), 631\u0026ndash;659. https://doi.org/10.1111/basr.12158\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTolmacz, R., \u0026amp; Mikulincer, M. (2011). The sense of entitlement in romantic relationships - Scale construction, factor structure, construct validity, and its associations with attachment orientations.\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003ePsychoanalytic Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, 28(1), 75-94.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTrabelsi, Z., Parambil, M. M. A., Alnajjar, F., \u0026amp; Ali, L. (2023). Behavioral-based real-time cheating detection in academic exams using deep learning techniques. In AIP Conference Proceedings 2909 (1), 2023.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang Yadan, Kong Fanchang, Zhao Gai, et al. (2020). The mediating effects of parenting style on adolescent gratitude: The roles of psychological entitlement and perspective taking. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Development and Education\u003c/em\u003e, 20(04), 427.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, C., Aguilar, S. J., Bankard, J. S., Bui, E., \u0026amp; Nye, B. (2024). Writing with AI: What College Students Learned from Utilizing ChatGPT for a Writing Assignment. \u003cem\u003eEducation Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, 14(9), 976. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14090976\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXie Fangfang. (2023). An empirical study on the investigation and impact of the anxiety of college students\u0026apos; English test in the online environment.\u003cem\u003e Scientific Counselling\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e (2), 40-42.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYafei, J. (2024). Psychological Entitlement and Behavioral Outcomes: An Integrated Model in Beijing\u0026rsquo;s Service Sector. Journal of Digitainability, Realism \u0026amp;amp; Mastery (DREAM), 3(10), 141\u0026ndash;155. https://doi.org/10.56982/dream.v3i10.272\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYing Xie, Shaoen Wu and Sumit Chakravarty. 2023. AI Meets AI: Artificial Intelligence and Academic Integrity: A Survey on Mitigating AI-Assisted Cheating in Computing Education. In \u003cem\u003eThe 24th Annual Conference on Information Technology Education (SIGITE \u0026apos;23)\u003c/em\u003e, October 11-14, 2023, Marietta, GA, USA. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 7 Pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3585059.3611449\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZaheer, H., Karim, J., \u0026amp; Bibi, Z. (2022). Actions Dictate the Consequences: Workplace Incivility, Knowledge Hiding, and Psychological Entitlement.\u003cem\u003e Journal of Business and Social Review in Emerging Economies\u003c/em\u003e, 8(1), 25\u0026ndash;38. https://doi.org/10.26710/jbsee.v8i1.2114\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003eTable 1\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Questionnaire\u0026rsquo;s Cronbach Alpha value\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN of cases\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN of items\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 299px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCronbach\u0026rsquo; s \u0026alpha; coefficient\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 128px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e121\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 129px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 299px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 2 \u003cem\u003eQuestionnaire\u0026rsquo;s KMO value\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 439px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eItems\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003efactor1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 88px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ecommunality\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 439px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHave you ever cheated on an AI assisted language test?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.800\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 88px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.639\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 439px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDo you think you have psychological entitlement?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.789\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 88px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.623\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 439px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWould you consider cheating in an AI assisted language test because you have psychological entitlement ?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.824\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 88px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.679\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 439px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWould it be easier for you to consider cheating if you had psychological entitlement?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.811\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 88px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.657\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 439px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDo you think psychological entitlement increases the likelihood of cheating in remote language tests?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.719\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 88px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.517\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 439px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDo you think psychological entitlement affects the moral evaluation of cheating?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.256\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 88px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.066\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 439px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKMO value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.766\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 88px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"language-testing-in-asia","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"ltia","sideBox":"Learn more about [Language Testing in Asia](http://languagetestingasia.springeropen.com)","snPcode":"40468","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/40468/3","title":"Language Testing in Asia","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Open","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"AI assisted language tests, cheating, countermeasures, psychological rights","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7311807/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7311807/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003ePsychological entitlement is a stable and universal feeling that people think they deserve more and enjoy more than others. This study aims to explore the influence of psychological entitlement on cheating in AI assisted language tests. The research questions focus on whether psychological entitlement impacts cheating, the reasons behind this link, and potential measures to address it in language education. A questionnaire survey was conducted among 121 students, revealing high reliability and validity with Cronbach's α coefficient at 0.79 and KMO value at 0.766. Exploratory factor analysis and principal component analysis identified six common factors, all with an absolute factor load greater than 0.5. Results indicate that students with strong psychological entitlement are more likely to cheat due to their belief in inherent academic success without personal effort. This is influenced by family, school, and societal factors. Based on these findings, the paper suggests countermeasures such as enhancing ethical integrity, adopting multiple test methods, implementing language learning processes, and strengthening remote exam supervision. These measures provide theoretical support for understanding and preventing cheating in AI assisted language assessments.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The Influence of Psychological Entitlement on Cheating in AI-assisted language assessment and Its Countermeasures","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-09-26 20:34:51","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7311807/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-11-21T01:40:45+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-11-14T07:47:18+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-11-13T11:33:32+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-11-10T18:54:14+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"195736801012404781908245187866976796467","date":"2025-10-29T13:23:34+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-10-24T15:17:11+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"166763156906352113398609539017622857026","date":"2025-10-21T14:16:13+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"195016285161005291134347645286583562770","date":"2025-10-21T10:21:19+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"259085807579029311936581307125405563197","date":"2025-10-21T08:20:14+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-10-03T19:39:15+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"197581239181154601049176314852699830449","date":"2025-09-28T04:26:41+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"123067087088574623055963691359813961692","date":"2025-09-27T02:26:34+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"67865714690831004303274433194029926018","date":"2025-09-26T06:38:15+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-09-17T06:46:54+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-08-12T04:57:13+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-08-12T04:54:55+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Language Testing in Asia","date":"2025-08-06T16:27:30+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"language-testing-in-asia","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"ltia","sideBox":"Learn more about [Language Testing in Asia](http://languagetestingasia.springeropen.com)","snPcode":"40468","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/40468/3","title":"Language Testing in Asia","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Open","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"a44c3939-b05a-49f2-b6a6-61f52ba976b1","owner":[],"postedDate":"September 26th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-06T13:38:51+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-09-26 20:34:51","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7311807","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7311807","identity":"rs-7311807","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}