Does Academic-Procrastination predict College Students’ Exam Cheating Behaviour?: the Mediational effects of Self-Efficacy for Self-Regulation and Test-Anxiety

Does Academic-Procrastination predict College Students’ Exam Cheating Behaviour?: the Mediational effects of Self-Efficacy for Self-Regulation and Test-Anxiety | 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 Does Academic-Procrastination predict College Students’ Exam Cheating Behaviour?: the Mediational effects of Self-Efficacy for Self-Regulation and Test-Anxiety Melese Astatke, Cathy Weng, Kifle Kassaw, Khanh Tran, Addis Astatike This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7146362/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Exam Cheating has been a common misbehaving activity amongst higher education level students. This study was aimed at examining the prevalence of exam cheating behavior amongst college students, and explore the mediating roles of self-efficacy for self-regulation and test-anxiety in the association between academic-procrastination and exam cheating behavior. A cross-sectional design was used for the study of 340 Ethiopian college students. Respondents completed measures of exam cheating behavior, academic procrastination, self-efficacy for self-regulation, and test-anxiety. Pearson correlation was used to assess the bivariate associations, and path analysis was used to investigate mediation. Amongst the 340 college students, about 212 (62.35%) admitted to cheating in exams. The score for exam cheating was positively correlated with scores for academic-procrastination and test-anxiety, and negatively correlated with the score for self-efficacy for self-regulation. Moreover, the association between academic-procrastination and exam cheating was fully mediated by the indirect effect of self-efficacy for self-regulation: β = .15, 95% bootstrap CI .10 to .19 and indirect effect of test-anxiety: β = .07, 95% CI .04 to .11 bootstrap. The results indicate that interventions aimed at developing self-efficacy for self-regulation and test-anxiety conquest may prevent or lessen exam cheating behaviors among college students, particularly for those with high academic procrastination. Psychology Academic Procrastination Self-Efficacy for Self-Regulation Test-Anxiety Examination Cheating Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction Prior study findings showed that academic dishonesty has probably existed since the inception of colleges (Robinson et al., 2004 ). Although academic dishonesty can be manifested in many forms, this paper concentrates on cheating on an examination. Cheating on an examination is described as using examination materials, such as verbal, written, oral or other means that are not permitted during examinations (Desalegn & Berhan, 2014 ). Examination cheating among college students has reached a high prevalence rate ( Hopp & Speil, 2020 ; Kiekkas et al., 2020 ). According to research conducted by Jalilian et al. ( 2016 ), nearly 61% of the individuals surveyed admitted to having engaged in academic dishonesty by cheating in exams at some point during their time in university. Previous studies reported high prevalence rates for cheating on examinations among respondent students. The overall prevalence of college students admitted to cheating in examinations was 37.8%, showing that cheating in examinations was common amongst college students (Dodeen, 2012 ). Examination cheating has been a pervasive problematic behavior among higher education level students, and the rate of students’ engagement in cheating dramatically increases when they progress from elementary school to higher education (Barzegar & Khezr, 2012 ). Cheating on examinations has serious effects on human life, economy, and social values (Desalegn & Berhan, 2014 ). Cheating is the main hindrance to infer students’ competency. According to Getachew and Dereje (2017), in Ethiopia, education experienced many challenging effects in terms of the quality of human power generation. Many students from the primary to tertiary education levels rely on others’ hard work to cheat so that they can be promoted to the next grade with no effort and no need to expend energy. The cheaters view themselves as active, discreet, and modern. For this reason, many students try to cling to others and count the grade ladder with all context knowledge and understanding. In line with this, Jimma ( 2019 ) announced that the examination cheating problem in the Ethiopian education system has hit a peak. In the context of this study, experiences show that college students had higher predispositions to cheat on an examination closely associated with academic achievement, which might be because the assessment circumstances with these activities convey students' heavy burden, and cause college students to keep cheating on examinations as a maladaptive coping strategy. Hence, the prevalence generally shows that cheating on an examination has become maladaptive and prevalent among participants. Therefore, it is important to prevent cheating on examinations because, based on previous studies, after graduation, people who cheat on examinations usually exhibit inappropriate behavior in their working environment as well (Chapman et al., 2016 ). It is therefore important for the enhancement of educational outcomes. One of the researcher’s experience of observing college students’ academic procrastination experience at a College of Teacher Education, where the study was conducted, was inspired to examine if students’ academic procrastination has direct and/or indirect effects on their examination cheating behavior. Academic-procrastination implies the postponing and delay of academic activities (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984 ). Many students are known to delay academic activities such as writing term papers, completing weekly course work, and studying for examinations (Patrzek et al., 2015 ). We wondered whether these students may subsequently also engage in examination cheating behaviors. Self-ratings of procrastination were positively correlated with scores for cheating on examinations (Roig & Detommaso, 1995 ). A study by Patrzek et al. ( 2015 ) on academic-procrastination had strong effects on the occurrences and the variety of academic cheating, such as cheating on examinations. When delaying, students may sense that there may be little time left until a closing date, and that postponing an educational task is likely to result in academic failure. They might cheat on examinations in order to make up for lost time and to prevent facing unfavorable outcomes. Although the positive connection between academic-procrastination and examination cheating has been reported in prior studies, how academic-procrastination affects examination cheating behavior is still not clear. To design interventions for decreasing or preventing college students’ examination cheating, it is helpful to scrutinize the potential mediators between academic-procrastination and cheating on examinations. Literature Review Self-efficacy for self-regulation as a mediator Self-efficacy refers to an individual's confidence in their capacity to undertake the required actions to attain a specific goal (Luszczynska & Schwarzer, 2015 ). Previous studies have reported that self-efficacy plays a part in reducing academic cheating behavior (Finn & Frone, 2004 ). Self-efficacy for self-regulation denotes the views people embrace in their abilities to consider and act in a way that is steadily concerned with their educational outcomes (Usher & Pajares, 2008 ). It reveals a person’s self-confidence in using a diversity of learning strategies, resisting disruptions, engaging in in-class learning activities, and accomplishing schoolwork (Zimmerman et al., 1992 ). Recently, it was pointed out that self–efficacy for self-regulation is a vital factor that is negatively associated with examination cheating. In Putarek and Pavlin-Bernardic’s (2019) study, self-efficacy for self-regulated learning (SESRL) was inversely linked with active cheating, and SESRL predicted academic cheating through behavioral engagement. Academic-procrastinators engage in disorganization and have poor time management skills (Howell & Watson, 2007 ; Steel, 2007 ). This indicates that academic-procrastinators have difficulties maintaining or adopting a structured and systematic approach to studying. Other studies have also reported that procrastinators often fail to plan and follow their intentions (e.g., Howell et al., 2006 ). Furthermore, academic-procrastinators seem to have motivational problems with regard to self-regulation. In general, these study findings show that academic procrastinators appear to be low self-regulated learners. Fida et al.’s ( 2018 ) longitudinal study finding also showed an inverse linkage between regulatory self-efficacy and cheating behavior. research substantiated that students exhibiting higher levels of regulatory self-efficacy are less likely to participate in cheating activities. This outcome underscores the significance of regulatory self-efficacy as a safeguard against engaging in morally and socially unacceptable behaviors, acting as a form of moral control inhibition. In essence, individuals who believe in their ability to uphold moral standards in challenging situations or under peer influence tend to report fewer instances of misconduct. Similarly, Barzegar and Khezri (2012) reported a significant negative association between academic self-efficacy and cheating ( r = .28). It has been observed that self-regulation as a common type of self-efficacy is inversely related to academic procrastination (Zhang et al., 2018 ). Therefore, in the linkage between academic-procrastination and examination cheating behavior, self-efficacy for self-regulation could have a mediating effect. Test-anxiety as a mediator Test-anxiety is explained as the set of cognitive, behavioral, and physiological responses that convey the problem of viable negative effects or failure on examinations or comparable evaluative situations (Zeidner, 2010 ). Test-anxious students have a disproportionately low response threshold for anxiety in evaluative circumstances, preferring to respond with intense emotional reactions and anticipation at the first true sign of failure. They often suffer from self-derogatory cognitions and decreased self-efficacy feelings (Zeidner, 2010 ). Test-anxiety was found to be the factor that contributed most to students’ cheating behavior of all the variables, such as socioeconomic status, achievement motivation, self-esteem, attribution of hard work, and study habit (Titilope & Faleye, 2016 ). Prior studies found that academic procrastination was closely related to test-anxiety, suggesting that academic procrastination might cause test-anxiety. Sinecal et al. (1995) stated a significant positive link between academic-procrastination and anxiety in college students ( r = .22). For students with high academic procrastination, the feeling that there is no sufficient time may make them have strong test-anxiety and then have great predispositions to cheat on examinations. Students with a higher test-anxiety level are likely to have poor academic performance, and they would want to cheat on examinations in order to pass. Hence, test-anxiety may mediate the association between academic-procrastination and examination cheating behavior. This study emphasized examination cheating behavior among college students, and predominantly the mechanisms by which academic-procrastination affects examination cheating behavior. Hypothetical model Figure 1 provides a schematic representation of the direct and indirect influence pathways within a hypothetical model. This model is developed according to the concepts of Protection Motivation Theory (PMT). PMT informs how people choose to act when confronted with several threats, how to assess the danger and recognize it, and then counter this assessment with effective and efficacious modification options (Rogers, 1975 ). It is organized along with two pathways (i.e., the threat appraisal pathway and the coping appraisal pathway). The threat appraisal implies the publicity and the seriousness of the threat, whereas the coping appraisal stresses the essential effect of efficacy beliefs (Floyd et al., 2000 ). In this work, we operationalized academic-procrastination as experience, test-anxiety as threat appraisal, self-efficacy for self-regulation as coping appraisal, and cheating on examinations as behavior. Academic-procrastination as experience previous studies have claimed that academic procrastination is a common experience among students. For example, Sirin (2011) reported that academic procrastination is trouble experienced because of delaying academic tasks such as preparing term papers and preparing for examinations. Similarly, Yastibas’s ( 2020 ) finding indicated that academic procrastination is a commonly experienced issue among higher education students. Test-anxiety as threat appraisal Threat appraisals are determined by perceived vulnerability and susceptibility to threats. In the psychological and educational literature, the anxieties that students attribute to classroom fear appeals are labeled as “test anxiety’’. It is a form of anxiety specific to certain situations, characterized by a tendency to view exams and similar assessments as sources of threat (Putwain & Best, 2012 ). Hence, threat appeals might be considered a situational precursor to test anxiety. Self-efficacy for self-regulation as coping appraisal Coping appraisals are rely on coping self-efficacy. Coping self-efficacy is the belief that individuals can effectively perform protective actions (Tsai et al., 2016 ). Cheating on examinations as behavior Cheating on examinations is an unethical behavio r that some higher education students often choose when confronted with the prospect of failing an exam (Starovoytova & Namango, 2016 ). This shows that cheating on an examination is apparently unethical behavior. The hypothetical model postulates the probable mediating effects of self-regulatory efficacy and test-anxiety in the linkbetween academic-procrastination and examination cheating. No study has yet to examine the mediating effects of self-regulation self-efficacy in the association between academic-procrastination and cheating on examinations among college students. As described in the model mentioned earlier, we hypothesized that self-regulation self-efficacy and test-anxiety can mediate the relationship between academic procrastination and examination cheating. This study aimed to: (1) investigate the associations among academic procrastination, self-efficacy for self-regulation, test-anxiety, and cheating on examinations and (2) examine the mediating effects of self-efficacy for self-regulation in the association between academic-procrastination and cheating on examinations. Methods Design and sampling This report presents a cross-sectional study aimed at examining variables that affect examination cheating behaviors among students at the college level. The study was conducted in [blinded for review], Ethiopia. Participants were recruited across the six departments–language, social science, mathematics, natural science, aesthetics, and education—at years 1–3. The sample was made up of 340 college students: language (64, 18.8%), social science (70, 20.6%), mathematics (50, 14.7%), natural science (54, 15.9%), aesthetics (52, 15.3%), and education (50, 14.7%). There were 176 male and 164 female students, with an age range of 18 to 24 years. Regarding study years, there were 134 (39.4%) students in their first year, 112 (32.9%) in their second year, and 94 (27.7%) in their third year. Procedure In the hall of the college, 340 randomly selected students of the college were gathered. The informed consent of participants was assured through discussion. The participants were informed that there were no right or wrong answer. Then, the questionnaire booklet on academic procrastination, test-anxiety, self-efficacy for self-regulation, and examination cheating was handed out to the students. One of the researchers provided instances and clarifications on how students should complete the questionnaire, along with additional details and guidance. At first they needed to fill in the demographic questionnaire which requested them to write their gender, year, and department. The classroom’s chalkboard was used to display examples. Afterward, they were instructed to initiate the questionnaire by carefully reading the provided instructions. Sufficient time was allocated to enable participants to finish the questionnaires. To prevent the students from giving invalid answers to the questionnaire items, they were allowed to raise any questions or doubts while filling in the details. All the booklets were collected when they were finished, and the researcher thanked the respondents and the assistants for their cooperation. Measures A questionnaire survey consisted of two parts utilized in this study. The first part included demographic questions about participants, such as gender, department, and study year. The second part comprised questions measuring the constructs portrayed in the research model: cheating on an examination, academic-procrastination, self-efficacy for self-regulation, and test-anxiety. The majority of the items were borrowed from previous studies, with only a few adjustments made to align them with the specific context of the present study. Examination cheating behavior Examination cheating was assessed by the Academic Dishonesty Scale (Becker & Ulstad 2007 ; McCabe & Trevino, 1997 ), which consists of nine items, and assesses the prevalence of students’ examination cheating behavior (e.g., “I use notes or a textbook on an examination without the permission of my instructor”). Respondents replied on a scale ranging from 1, never , to 5, many times . McCabe and Trevino ( 1997 ) conveyed an acceptable internal consistency of the measurement with Cronbach’s α of 0.83. The scale has proved to have acceptable reliability and validity (Becker & Ulstad, 2007 ). In this study, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient was calculated to be 0.92. Academic-procrastination Procrastination Assessment Scale—Students (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984 ) was used to measure academic-procrastination (e.g., “I usually delay before beginning on an academic activity I must do”). Respondents completed 10 items on a scale of 5 points, ranging from 1, never procrastinate , to 5, always procrastinate , for each of the activities to demonstrate how often they delay on that task. The items were adapted for the context of the study. The score of the scale has confirmed satisfactory reliability and validity (Mortazavi et al., 2015 ). The reliability coefficient of the Cronbach’s alpha was 0.88 for this study. Self-efficacy for self-regulation The scale used to assess self-efficacy for self-regulation was the self-efficacy for self-regulated learning scale (Zimmerman et al., 1992 ). The scale accommodates 11 items, in particular, assessing respondents’ self-efficacy on using self-regulatory abilities and strategies across instructional areas (e.g., “I study when there are other interesting activities to do”; “I remember information presented in textbooks and class”). For example, the item: “I remember information presented in textbooks and class” was used to measure students’ self-efficacy for self-regulation ability by examining how well they could remember content presented in the textbooks and that they learned in class. The items were evaluated on a scale of 7 Likert-type points, from 1 ( not well at all ) to 7 ( very well ) response choices. A greater rating suggests a greater degree of self-regulatory self-efficacy. Usher and Pajares ( 2008 ) obtained satisfactory reliability and validity of the scale score (α = 0.83). In this study, the Cronbach’s α was 0.92. Test-anxiety The West side Test-anxiety scale (Driscoll, 2007 ) was used to measure test-anxiety. The scale comprises 10 items (e.g., “The closer I get to the main examination, the more difficult it is for me to focus on the content”). The items were measured by a 5-point Likert-type scale, with answer choices ranging from 1 ( not at all or never true ) to 5 ( extremely or always true). A higher rating demonstrates a higher degree of test anxiety. The scale rating has established adequate reliability and validity (Johnson et al., 2009 ). The Cronbach's α was 0.89 in this study. Data analysis Descriptive statistics were used to describe the research variable characteristics such as mean, standard deviations, frequency, and percentages. Variables related to examination cheating behavior were examined using the Pearson product-moment correlation, t test, and one-way ANOVA. To test the mediation model in Fig. 1 , path analysis was conducted using the maximum estimate of likelihood. The model fit was estimated based on the following standards of the goodness of model fit: the chi-square (x 2 ) test, the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker Lewis index (TLI), the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR). A non-significant (x 2 ) value ( p > .05) suggests a path analysis model that fits the data well, while a significant (x 2 ) value is indicative that the path analysis model does not fit the data (Shah, 2012 ). In addition, the subsequent cut-off values indicate acceptable fits to the model: CFI / TLI > .90 (Schreiber et al., 2006 ), SRMR < .05, RMSEA .06 to .08 (Barbeau et al., 2019 ). Moreover, indirect effects were tested using a 95% confidence interval bootstrap replication bootstrap approach: 5000 (Preacher & Hayes, 2008 ). Indirect paths are significant while the complete mediation takes place when the direct path from academic-procrastination to examination cheating is no longer significant (MacKinnon et al., 2007 ). SPSS version 24, except for Path analysis in MPLUS 7, was used for analysis. Statistical value was set at 0.05. Ethical consideration The research committee of the [blinded for review], Ethiopia approved this study. The ethical guidelines to be followed and the intent of the study were clarified before the questionnaires were administered to the students who volunteered to take part in the study. Consent was obtained from all respondents in the study through discussion. Confidentiality was assured by a comprehensive review of the data, and students’ identity was not reported anywhere on the questionnaire. Results Examination cheating behavior Of the 340 college students, 212 (62.35%) reported that they nearly always or always admitted to cheating on examinations. As depicted in Table 1 , which shows examination cheating behavior by participant characteristics, first Year College students had a higher mean score for cheating on examinations than second-year and third-year students. Furthermore, the post hoc result shows that first and second year students reported significantly higher mean scores for examination cheating than the third year students. No significant differences in examination cheating were noticed for other demographic variables, such as department or gender. However, male students reported a higher examination cheating mean score than their female counterparts. Study variables and inter-correlations Table 2 reveals that the mean scores for academic-procrastination, self-efficacy for self-regulation, test-anxiety, and examination cheating were 2.95 ( SD 1.07), 4.16 ( SD 1.64), 3.25 ( SD 1.10), and 3.25 ( SD 1.07), respectively. The mean score for examination cheating was positively associated with the mean scores for academic-procrastination ( r = .231, p < .01) and test-anxiety ( r = .298, p < .01), and inversely linked with the mean score of self-efficacy for self-regulation ( r = − .406, p < .01). In addition, the study variables were significantly interrelated. Table 1 Comparison of the means for examination cheating behavior based on the characteristics of the sample ( N = 340) Variables Sample Characteristics N (%) Examination cheating Means ( SD ) t/F Post hoc Gender 1.73 Male 176 (51.8) 3.34 (1.06) Female 164 (48.2) 3.14 (0.07) Department/Major 1.77 Language 64 (18.8) 2.98 (0.92) Social science 70 (20.6) 3.43 (1.15) Mathematics 50 (14.7) 3.22 (1.22) Natural science 54 (15.9) 3.33 (1.13) Aesthetics 52 (15.3) 3.42 (1.07) Education 50 (14.7) 3.09 (0.80) Year of study 5.34 ** First year a 134 (39.4) 3.40 (0.96) a > b; Second year b 112 (32.9) 3.31 (1.16) a > c * ; Third year c 94 (27.7) 2.95 (1.05) b > c * Note. SD : Standard Deviation * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 Table 2 Inter-correlation coefficients between scores for academic procrastination, self-efficacy for self-regulation, test-anxiety, and examination cheating among students at College level ( N = 340) Variables Mean ( SD ) Skewness Kurtosis PASS score SESR score TA score PASS score 2.95 (1.07) .192 -1.110 SESR score 4.16 (1.64) − .129 -1.319 − .408 ** TA score 3.25 (1.10) − .123 -1.175 .342 ** − .226 ** ECh score 3.25 (1.07) .112 -1.167 .231 ** − .406 ** .298 ** Note. SD standard deviation, PASS procrastination assessment scale-students, SESR self-efficacy for self-regulated learning, TA Test-anxiety scale, ECh examination cheating scale **: p < .01 Testing the hypothesized path analysis model and mediational roles Figure 2 presents the final structural model of the association between academic procrastination and examination cheating behavior through test-anxiety and self-efficacy for self-regulation. The model verified acceptable fit reflected by x 2 (1) = 3.49, p = 0.06, CFI = .986, TLI = .918, SRMR = .026, RMSEA = .068. Solid lines and dotted lines represented statistically significant and insignificant paths, respectively. The present model demonstrated 20% of the variance in examination cheating behavior. Table 3 reveals that the overall indirect impact of academic-procrastination on examination cheating by test-anxiety and self-efficacy for self-regulation was .22, 95% CI [.16, .28], from which the indirect impact of academic-procrastination on examination cheating by self-regulatory self-efficacy was .15, 95% CI [.10, .19], and through test-anxiety it was .07, 95% CI [.04, .11]. The confidence interval for indirect effects did not include zero, indicating significant indirect effects by the two mediators. Academic-procrastination’s direct impact on examination cheating was .01, 95% CI [− .09, .11]. On the other hand, confidence intervals for the direct effect included zero, which indicated complete mediation, suggesting an insignificant direct effect. The indirect to overall impact ratio was 97.3%, with the indirect effect of academic-procrastination on examination cheating by the prevalence of self-efficacy for self-regulation. Students’ years of study did not have a significant effect on cheating on an examination as a covariate. Table 3 Indirect impacts of academic procrastination of college students on their examination cheating behavior through suggested mediators ( N = 340) Mediators Estimates 95% BC Bootstrap CI SE LL UL The two Mediators’ total .22 ** .03 .16 .28 Self-efficacy for self-regulation .15 ** .03 .10 .19 Test-anxiety .07 ** .02 .04 .11 Note. SE standard error, LL lower limit, UL upper limit, BC bootstrap, CI bias-corrected confidence intervals **: p < .01 Discussion Several prior studies reported the different views of students on cheating on examinations depending on their culture and their educational level (Magnus et al., 2002 ). In line with this, a tremendous number of earlier researchers investigated the extent and explanations for cheating. For example, Bunn et al. ( 1992 ) interviewed U.S. graduates in economics and found that several students were cheating, that the better the student, the less probable it was that he or she had cheated, and that there is a greater likelihood of cheating once if the student thinks others are cheating. As such, an examination of the prevalence rate and variables associated with examination cheating is crucial to understanding and preventing examination cheating behavior. Nowadays, cheating on examinations has become a common occurrence, and with technology becoming more advanced every day, higher education cheating is growing and has become a global issue (Bazoukis & Dimoliatis, 2011 ). Consequently, there have been reports of high rates of examination cheating behavior in numerous countries. For example, Hosny and Fatima ( 2014 ) suggested that the rate of college students who cheated was up to 90% (Hosny & Fatima, 2014 ). The same study revealed that over the school year, 95% of students cheated on examinations (Khodaie et al., 2011 ). In line with the reports of previous studies (e.g., Barzegar & Khezri, 2012; Davis et al., 1992; Desalegn & Berhan, 2014 ), in this study, the prevalence of self-reported accounts of examination cheating students was high (i.e., 62.35% ). This shows that cheating on examinations is a common misbehaving activity among college students. Hence, the prevalence generally shows that cheating on examinations has become maladaptive and prevalent among participants in this study. From the above discussion and results of this study, it can be understood that there must be concern about the high pervasiveness of examination cheating actions among college students. The first phase of developing operational interventions to decrease examination cheating behavior is to comprehend factors related to examination cheating behavior and their working mechanisms. In connection to this, the present study found that academic-procrastination was positively correlated with examination cheating behavior amongst college students, which was consistent with previous studies (e.g., Roig & DeTommaso, 1995 ; Patrzek et al., 2015 ). It indicated that reducing college students’ academic-procrastination may reduce their examination cheating behavior. Furthermore, our expectations about the mediating effects of test-anxiety and self-efficacy for self-regulation on the association between academic-procrastination and examination cheating behavior were confirmed. Although there were implications of how academic-procrastination impacts examination cheating behavior, a decisive indication concerning this issue was inadequate. These study findings provide a new perspective to recognize the relationship between academic-procrastination and examination cheating behavior by the mediating effects of test-anxiety and self-efficacy for self-regulation. College students’ self-efficacy for self-regulation score was inversely correlated with their examination cheating behavior, and mediated the association between academic-procrastination and examination cheating behavior. This result contributes sustenance to the essential effect of self-efficacy for self-regulation on examination cheating, which was similar to the findings of prior studies. Previous studies suggested that negative effects on affective self-regulation affected the acceptability and probability of cheating (d’Arripe-Longueville et al., 2010 ). Besides, college students with a high degree of self-efficacy to regulate their learning were found to be less disposed to cheat on examinations. In line with this study, Ng ( 2018 ) found a significant negative path between procrastination and self-regulated learning (β = − .34). The negative links of academic-procrastination with self-regulatory efficacy show that when college students perceive procrastination, their self-regulatory efficacy decreases, which may result in cheating on an examination. Interventions to enhance self-efficacy for self-regulation (SESR) might, therefore, be essential to decrease examination cheating amongst college students, especially for those with higher academic procrastination. Test-anxiety was positively correlated with examination cheating behavior, which was consistent with previous studies (Titilope & Faleye, 2016 ). The mediating effect of test-anxiety on the link between academic-procrastination and examination cheating has been proposed in prior studies but lacked a decisive indication of a mediation role. Chronic procrastinators exhibit substantially greater anxiety rates (Scher & Osterman, 2002 ; Steel, 2007 ). Hence, students who regularly procrastinate may develop a constricted lifestyle in trying to avoid positive activities which may expose them to the hazard of failing an examination. Consequently, they may cheat. At this point, Bassey and Iruoje ( 2016 ) demonstrated that test-anxiety was a predictor of students’ cheating tendencies in examinations. Our study noticeably showed the mediating effect of test-anxiety in understanding why college students who are high academic procrastinators are more likely to be involved in cheating on examinations. Hence, conquering test anxiety can be an intervention strategy for preventing or reducing examination cheating among college students, particularly those with higher academic procrastination. Therefore, it is worth noting that, while previous research has revealed only the direct associations of self-efficacy for self-regulation (SESR) and test anxiety with academic procrastination and examination cheating behavior, our research revealed that these two variables (i.e., self-efficacy for self-regulation (SESR) and test anxiety) also have potential mediating effects for the link between academic procrastination and examination cheating behavior. The focus should also be the indirect effect of academic procrastination on students’ examination cheating behavior. Implications The results of the present study show that the reduction and prevention of examination cheating behavior must be part of the all-inclusive learning approach. Targeted interventions include overcoming academic-procrastination and test-anxiety, and improving self-efficacy for self-regulation. Given the widespread occurrence and adverse outcomes associated with academic procrastination, it becomes evident that educators require resources to mitigate this behavior and promote improved learning and self-regulation skills among all college-level students. To help college students reduce their academic procrastination, teachers should scaffold them to adopt effective strategies and to replace their maladaptive patterns with more helpful and efficient learning habits. The three-tiered anti-procrastination (T-TAP) model suggests that students with scaffolding support can diminish their academic-procrastination and enhance their self-efficacy and self-regulation skills (Xu, 2015 ). These interventions focusing on preventing college students’ academic-procrastination can indirectly prevent or reduce cheating on examinations by encouraging self-efficacy for self-regulation and diminishing test-anxiety. The results of this study emphasize the importance of encouraging self-regulation efficacy, which is a prerequisite for helping college students improve their self-regulatory skills, such as meta-cognitive strategies and time management, and then provide better possibilities for accomplishment in the usage of self-regulation abilities to enhance students’ feelings of proficiency (Hogan et al., 2015 ). This study’s results also highlight the relevance of reducing test-anxiety. Teachers should provide frequent feedback before and after tests to reduce the test-anxiety levels of learners, and give them the chance to express how they felt about examinations, which may have an impact on their anxiety levels. Moreover, Acceptance Commitment Therapy might be important to reduce test-anxiety (Twohig et al., 2017) and decrease cheating on examinations. Limitations Despite its contributions, there are also some limitations to the present study. To begin with, a study sample from one College of teacher education in Ethiopia may be unrepresentative of the general college student population, so the results may not be easily generalized to others. More diverse research is required to generalize our study findings to different contexts. Second, the findings of self-reported questionnaires in the present study are probably prejudiced, despite the reliable and valid scale scores. Third, for this study, we did not ask students’ opinions on their means and reasons for cheating or the situations in which they cheat, but rather how often they had cheated, and potential variables connected to their cheating behavior. For future research, investigating the cheating mechanisms and why the students cheat on examinations would be relevant. Furthermore, the cross-sectional design cannot conclude that the variables of the study are causally related. Hence, longitudinal studies are necessary to prove causality. Conclusions Preventing examination cheating behavior is vitally necessary to the college of teacher education students. The present study provides preliminary evidence that self-efficacy for self-regulation and test anxiety are potential mediators in the link between academic procrastination and examination cheating behavior. Examination cheating behavior might be reduced by overcoming academic-procrastination and test-anxiety and improving self-efficacy for self-regulation. What’s more, to prevent examination cheating behavior among college students with higher academic procrastination, interventions could be considered to target the conquest of test-anxiety and improvement of self-efficacy for self-regulation depending on their mediation roles in the association between academic-procrastination and examination cheating behavior. References Barbeau K, Boileau K, Sarr F, Smith K (2019) Path analysis in mplus: A tutorial using a conceptual model of psychological and behavioral antecedents of bulimic symptoms in young adults. Quant Methods Psychol 15(1):38–53. 10.20982/tqmp.15.1.p038 Barzegar K, Khezr H (2012) Predicting academic cheating among the fifth-grade students: The role of self-efficacy and academic self-handicapping. J Life Sci Biomed 2(1):1–6 Bassey B, Iruoje J (2016) Test-anxiety, attitude to schooling, parental influence, and peer pressure as predictors of students cheating tendencies in examination in Edo State, Nigeria. Global J Social Sci 15(1):39–46. 10.4314/gjss.v15i1.4 Bazoukis G, Dimoliatis IDK (2011) Cheating in medical schools in Greece: quantitative evaluation and recommendations for resolving the problem. Arch Hell Med 28(3):390–399 Becker DAA, Ulstad I (2007) Gender differences in student ethics: Are females really more ethical? Plagiary 2:77–91 Bunn DN, Caudill SB, Gropper DM (1992) Crime in the classroom: An economic analysis of undergraduate student cheating behavior. J Econ Educ 23(3):197–207 Chapman KJ, Davis R, Toy D, Wright L (2016) Academic integrity in the business school environment: I’ll get by with a little help from my friends. J Mark Educ 26(3):236–249. 10.1177/0273475304268779 Desalegn AA, Berhan A (2014) Cheating on examinations and its predictors among undergraduate students at Hawassa University College of medicine and health science, Hawassa, Ethiopia. BMC Med Educ, 14 (1), Article 89. d’Arripe-Longueville F, Corrion K, Scoffier S, Roussel P, Chalabaev A (2010) Sociocognitive self-regulatory mechanisms governing judgments of the acceptability and likelihood of sports cheating. J Sport Exerc Psychol 32(5):595–618 Driscoll R (2007) Westside test anxiety scale validation. Education Resources Information Center. http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED495968.pdf Dodeen HM (2012) Undergraduate student cheating in exams. Damascus Univ J 28(1):37–55 Fida R, Tramontano C, Paciello M, Ghezzi V, Barbaranelli C (2018) Understanding the interplay among regulatory self-efficacy, moral disengagement, and academic cheating behavior during vocational education: a three-wave study. J Bus Ethics 153(3):725–740 Finn KV, Frone MR (2004) Academic performance and cheating: Moderating role of school identification and self-efficacy. J Educational Res 97(3):115–121. 10.3200/JOER.97.3.115-121 Floyd DL, Prentice-Dunn S, Rogers RW (2000) A meta‐analysis of research on protection motivation theory. J Appl Soc Psychol 30(2):407–429. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02323.x Hogan MJ, Dwyer CP, Harney OM, Noone C, Conway RJ (2015) Metacognition: Fundaments, applications, and trends. In: Peña-Ayala A (ed) Metacognitive skill development and applied systems science: A framework of metacognitive skills, self-regulatory functions, and real-world applications. Springer, Berlin, Germany, pp 75–106 Hopp C, Speil A (2020) How prevalent is plagiarism among college students? Anonymity preserving evidence from Austrian undergraduates. Account Res 1–16. doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2020.1804880 Hosny M, Fatima S (2014) Attitude of students towards cheating and plagiarism: University case study. J Appl Sci 14(8):748–757. 10.3923/jas.2014.748.757 Howell AJ, Watson DC (2007) Procrastination: Associations with achievement goal orientation and learning strategies. Personal-ity Individual Differences 43:167–178. 10.1016/j.paid.2006.11.017 Howell AJ, Watson DC, Powell RA, Buro K (2006) Aca-demic procrastination: The pattern and correlates of behavioral post-ponement. Pers Indiv Differ 40:1519–1530. 10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.023 Jalilian F, Moazami P, Mirzaei-Alavijeh M, Moazami AM, Jalili C (2016) Sensation seeking and the intention to cheating among college students: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Res J Appl Sci 11(8):645–649 Jimma KA (2019) Integrity ‘deflation’: Preparatory students’ perceptions and practices of ac demic cheating behaviors. American Journal of Social Research , 1( 8 ) . https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/integrity-%e2%80%98deflation%e2%80%99%3a-preparatory-students%e2%80%99-and-of/fe662d4b58b8503fd2c9f271ba481906f16835cd Johnson CM, Larson HA, Conn SR, Estes LA, Ghibellini AB (2009) March 19–23). The impact of relaxation techniques on third-grade students' self-perceived levels of test anxiety. [Paper presentation]. American Counseling Association Annual Conference and Exposition, Charlotte, NC Khodaie E, Moghadamzadeh A, Salehi K (2011) Factors affecting the probability of academic cheating school students in Tehran. Procedia-Social Behav Sci 29:1587–1595. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.401 Kiekkas P, Michalopoulos E, Stefanopoulos N, Samartzi K, Krania P, Giannikopoulou M, Igoumenidis M (2020) Reasons for academic dishonesty during examinations among nursing students: Cross-sectional survey. Nurse Education Today , 86 , 104314. doi.10.1016/j.nedt.2019.104314 Luszczynska A, Schwarzer R (2015) Social cognitive theory. In: Conner M, Norman P (eds) Predicting and changing health behaviour: Research and practice with social cognition models. Open University, pp 225–251 MacKinnon DP, Fairchild AJ, Fritz MS (2007) Mediation analysis. Ann Rev Psychol 58:593–614 Magnus JR, Polterovich VM, Danilov DL, Savvateev AV (2002) Tolerance of cheating: An analysis across countries. J Econ Educ 33(2):125–135. 10.1080/00220480209596462 Mccabe DL, Trevino LK (1997) Individual and contextual influences on academic dishonesty: A multicampus investigation. Res High Educt 38(3):379–396 Mortazavi F, Mortazavi SS, Khosrorad R (2015) Psychometric properties of the procrastination assessment scale-student (PASS) in a student sample of Sabzevar University of medical sciences. Iran Red Crescent Med J 17(9). 10.5812/ircmj.28328 Ng B (2018) Exploring procrastination and self-regulated learning through motivational beliefs. J Res Initiatives, 3 (3), Article 11. Patrzek J, Sattler S, van Veen F, Grunschel C, Fries S (2015) Investigating the effect of academic procrastination on the frequency and variety of academic misconduct: a panel study. Stud High Educ 40(6):1014–1029. 10.1080/03075079.2013.854765 Preacher KJ, Hayes AF (2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav Res Methods 40(3):879–891 Putarek V, Pavlin-Bernardić N (2019) The role of self-efficacy for self-regulated learning, achievement goals, and engagement in academic cheating. Eur J Psychol Educ. 10.1007/s10212-019-00443-7 Putwain DW, Best N (2012) Do highly test anxious students respond differentially to fear appeals made prior to a test? Res Educ 88(1):1–10 Robinson E, Amburgey R, Swank E, Faulkner C (2004) Test cheating in a rural college: Studying the importance of individual and situational factors. Coll Student J 38(3):380–396 Roig M, Detommaso L (1995) Are college cheating and plagiarism related to academic procrastination? Psychol Rep 77:691–698. 10.2466/pr0.1995.77.2.691 Rogers RW (1975) A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change1. J Psychol 91(1):93–114. 10.1080/00223980.1975.9915803 Scher SJ, Osterman NM (2002) Procrastination, conscientiousness, anxiety, and goals: Exploring the measurement and correlates of procrastination among school-aged children. Psychol Sch 39(4):385–398. 10.1002/pits.10045 Schreiber JB, Nora A, Stage FK, Barlow EA, King J (2006) Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. J Educational Res 99(6):323–338. 10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338 Senecal C, Koestner R, Vallerand RJ (1995) Self-Regulation and academic procrastination. J Soc Psychol 135(5):607–619. 10.1080/00224545.1995.9712234 Shah RB (2012) A multivariate analysis technique: Structural equation modeling. Asian J Multidimensional Res 1(4):73–81 Şirin EF (2011) Academic procrastination among undergraduates attending school of physical education and sports: Role of general procrastination, academic motivation and academic self-efficacy. Educational Research and Reviews , 6 (5), 447–455. doi.10.5897/ERR.9000020 Solomon LJ, Rothblum ED (1984) Academic procrastination: frequency and cognitive behavioral correlates. J Couns Psychol 31(4):503–509. 10.1037/0022-0167.31.4.503 Starovoytova D, Namango S (2016) Factors Affecting Cheating-Behavior at Undergraduate-Engineering. J Educ Pract 7(31):66–82. http://iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JEP Steel P (2007) The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychol Bull 133(1):65–94. 10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65 Titilope RO, Faleye BA (2016) August 29th -31st). Path analytic investigation of cheating behavior in assessments in Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of INCEDI 2016 Conference (pp.763–772), Accra, Ghana Tsai HYS, Jiang M, Alhabash S, LaRose R, Rifon NJ, Cotten SR (2016) Understanding online safety behaviors: A protection motivation theory perspective. Computers Secur 59:138–150. 10.1016/j.cose.2016.02.009 Twohig MP, Levin ME (2017) Acceptance and commitment therapy as a treatment for anxiety and depression: A review. Psychiatric Clin 40(4):751–770. 10.1016/j.psc.2017.68.009 Usher EL, Pajares F (2008) Self-Efficacy for self-regulated learning: A validation study. Educ Psychol Meas 68(3):443–463. 10.1177/0013164407308475 Xu Z (2015) Just do it! Reducing academic-procrastination of secondary students. Intervention School Clin 51(4):212–219. 10.1177/1053451215589178 YastibaS AE (2020) Understanding and Dealing with Academic Procrastination. i-Manager's Journal on English Language Teaching , 10 (1), 1. 10.26634/jelt.10.1.16559 Zeidner M (2010) Test-anxiety. In I. In: Weiner B, Craighead WE (eds) the Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp 1–3 Zhang Y, Dong S, Fang W, Chai X, Mei J, Fan X (2018) Self-efficacy for self-regulation and fear of failure as mediators between self-esteem and academic-procrastination among undergraduates in health professions. Adv Health Sci Educ 23(4):817–830. 10.1007/s10459-018-9832-3 Zimmerman BJ, Bandura A, Martinez-Pons M (1992) Self-Motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. Am Educ Res J 29(3):663–676. 10.3102/00028312029003663 Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted 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-7146362","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":486765830,"identity":"b3191cc9-68d5-4318-970a-d4a264edd68e","order_by":0,"name":"Melese Astatke","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Taiwan University of Science and Technology","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Melese","middleName":"","lastName":"Astatke","suffix":""},{"id":486766545,"identity":"2e6bea57-4abf-4dda-93e6-d407bf0ae1cf","order_by":1,"name":"Cathy Weng","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Taiwan University of Science and Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Cathy","middleName":"","lastName":"Weng","suffix":""},{"id":486767032,"identity":"fbb1d681-ebbc-4f3e-bd4e-d669e9945f5a","order_by":2,"name":"Kifle Kassaw","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Taiwan University of Science and Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kifle","middleName":"","lastName":"Kassaw","suffix":""},{"id":486767514,"identity":"ee2b5339-af56-43c3-b07d-d56992e5c939","order_by":3,"name":"Khanh Tran","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Taiwan University of Science and Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Khanh","middleName":"","lastName":"Tran","suffix":""},{"id":486768196,"identity":"3914e710-0fc3-4e7d-8ac2-98343038dbfb","order_by":4,"name":"Addis Astatike","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Taiwan University of Science and Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Addis","middleName":"","lastName":"Astatike","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-07-17 08:06:42","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":true,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true,"humanSubjectConsent":true,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":true,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7146362/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7146362/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":87040356,"identity":"905743b0-4656-4486-b829-1477bd2ad652","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-18 13:49:58","extension":"jpeg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":27566,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe association between academic-procrastination and examination cheating behavior proposed mediation model based on Roger’s (1975) Protection Motivation Theory (PMT)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"groupimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7146362/v1/6ff2c0b5ba43afde9e4cca9c.jpeg"},{"id":87040359,"identity":"ada6e18a-b015-4309-bbd1-ffb5a693ba72","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-18 13:49:58","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":25821,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe final structural model with standardized path coefficients controlling for the impact of Year of study as the covariate on examination cheating amongst college students. X\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e(1) =3.49, CFI = .986, TLI = .918, RMSEA = .068, SRMR = .026.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7146362/v1/91aa6998b0d2e183d5b320bb.png"},{"id":87043183,"identity":"181b722b-3c05-4801-8795-b583ef48acad","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-18 14:13:58","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":919667,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7146362/v1/7ed0b447-5e76-4245-848c-34ed7f166dbe.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDoes Academic-Procrastination predict College Students’ Exam Cheating Behaviour?: the Mediational effects of Self-Efficacy for Self-Regulation and Test-Anxiety\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003ePrior study findings showed that academic dishonesty has probably existed since the inception of colleges (Robinson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). Although academic dishonesty can be manifested in many forms, this paper concentrates on cheating on an examination. Cheating on an examination is described as using examination materials, such as verbal, written, oral or other means that are not permitted during examinations (Desalegn \u0026amp; Berhan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Examination cheating among college students has reached a high prevalence rate ( Hopp \u0026amp; Speil, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Kiekkas et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). According to research conducted by Jalilian et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), nearly 61% of the individuals surveyed admitted to having engaged in academic dishonesty by cheating in exams at some point during their time in university. Previous studies reported high prevalence rates for cheating on examinations among respondent students. The overall prevalence of college students admitted to cheating in examinations was 37.8%, showing that cheating in examinations was common amongst college students (Dodeen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Examination cheating has been a pervasive problematic behavior among higher education level students, and the rate of students’ engagement in cheating dramatically increases when they progress from elementary school to higher education (Barzegar \u0026amp; Khezr, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Cheating on examinations has serious effects on human life, economy, and social values (Desalegn \u0026amp; Berhan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Cheating is the main hindrance to infer students’ competency. According to Getachew and Dereje (2017), in Ethiopia, education experienced many challenging effects in terms of the quality of human power generation. Many students from the primary to tertiary education levels rely on others’ hard work to cheat so that they can be promoted to the next grade with no effort and no need to expend energy. The cheaters view themselves as active, discreet, and modern. For this reason, many students try to cling to others and count the grade ladder with all context knowledge and understanding. In line with this, Jimma (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) announced that the examination cheating problem in the Ethiopian education system has hit a peak. In the context of this study, experiences show that college students had higher predispositions to cheat on an examination closely associated with academic achievement, which might be because the assessment circumstances with these activities convey students' heavy burden, and cause college students to keep cheating on examinations as a maladaptive coping strategy. Hence, the prevalence generally shows that cheating on an examination has become maladaptive and prevalent among participants. Therefore, it is important to prevent cheating on examinations because, based on previous studies, after graduation, people who cheat on examinations usually exhibit inappropriate behavior in their working environment as well (Chapman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). It is therefore important for the enhancement of educational outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne of the researcher’s experience of observing college students’ academic procrastination experience at a College of Teacher Education, where the study was conducted, was inspired to examine if students’ academic procrastination has direct and/or indirect effects on their examination cheating behavior. Academic-procrastination implies the postponing and delay of academic activities (Solomon \u0026amp; Rothblum, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1984\u003c/span\u003e). Many students are known to delay academic activities such as writing term papers, completing weekly course work, and studying for examinations (Patrzek et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). We wondered whether these students may subsequently also engage in examination cheating behaviors. Self-ratings of procrastination were positively correlated with scores for cheating on examinations (Roig \u0026amp; Detommaso, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e). A study by Patrzek et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) on academic-procrastination had strong effects on the occurrences and the variety of academic cheating, such as cheating on examinations. When delaying, students may sense that there may be little time left until a closing date, and that postponing an educational task is likely to result in academic failure. They might cheat on examinations in order to make up for lost time and to prevent facing unfavorable outcomes. Although the positive connection between academic-procrastination and examination cheating has been reported in prior studies, how academic-procrastination affects examination cheating behavior is still not clear. To design interventions for decreasing or preventing college students’ examination cheating, it is helpful to scrutinize the potential mediators between academic-procrastination and cheating on examinations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLiterature Review\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSelf-efficacy for self-regulation as a mediator\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSelf-efficacy refers to an individual's confidence in their capacity to undertake the required actions to attain a specific goal (Luszczynska \u0026amp; Schwarzer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Previous studies have reported that self-efficacy plays a part in reducing academic cheating behavior (Finn \u0026amp; Frone, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). Self-efficacy for self-regulation denotes the views people embrace in their abilities to consider and act in a way that is steadily concerned with their educational outcomes (Usher \u0026amp; Pajares, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). It reveals a person’s self-confidence in using a diversity of learning strategies, resisting disruptions, engaging in in-class learning activities, and accomplishing schoolwork (Zimmerman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e). Recently, it was pointed out that self–efficacy for self-regulation is a vital factor that is negatively associated with examination cheating. In Putarek and Pavlin-Bernardic’s (2019) study, self-efficacy for self-regulated learning (SESRL) was inversely linked with active cheating, and SESRL predicted academic cheating through behavioral engagement. Academic-procrastinators engage in disorganization and have poor time management skills (Howell \u0026amp; Watson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Steel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). This indicates that academic-procrastinators have difficulties maintaining or adopting a structured and systematic approach to studying. Other studies have also reported that procrastinators often fail to plan and follow their intentions (e.g., Howell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, academic-procrastinators seem to have motivational problems with regard to self-regulation. In general, these study findings show that academic procrastinators appear to be low self-regulated learners. Fida et al.’s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) longitudinal study finding also showed an inverse linkage between regulatory self-efficacy and cheating behavior. research substantiated that students exhibiting higher levels of regulatory self-efficacy are less likely to participate in cheating activities. This outcome underscores the significance of regulatory self-efficacy as a safeguard against engaging in morally and socially unacceptable behaviors, acting as a form of moral control inhibition. In essence, individuals who believe in their ability to uphold moral standards in challenging situations or under peer influence tend to report fewer instances of misconduct. Similarly, Barzegar and Khezri (2012) reported a significant negative association between academic self-efficacy and cheating (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = .28). It has been observed that self-regulation as a common type of self-efficacy is inversely related to academic procrastination (Zhang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, in the linkage between academic-procrastination and examination cheating behavior, self-efficacy for self-regulation could have a mediating effect.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTest-anxiety as a mediator\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTest-anxiety is explained as the set of cognitive, behavioral, and physiological responses that convey the problem of viable negative effects or failure on examinations or comparable evaluative situations (Zeidner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Test-anxious students have a disproportionately low response threshold for anxiety in evaluative circumstances, preferring to respond with intense emotional reactions and anticipation at the first true sign of failure. They often suffer from self-derogatory cognitions and decreased self-efficacy feelings (Zeidner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Test-anxiety was found to be the factor that contributed most to students’ cheating behavior of all the variables, such as socioeconomic status, achievement motivation, self-esteem, attribution of hard work, and study habit (Titilope \u0026amp; Faleye, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Prior studies found that academic procrastination was closely related to test-anxiety, suggesting that academic procrastination might cause test-anxiety. Sinecal et al. (1995) stated a significant positive link between academic-procrastination and anxiety in college students (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = .22). For students with high academic procrastination, the feeling that there is no sufficient time may make them have strong test-anxiety and then have great predispositions to cheat on examinations. Students with a higher test-anxiety level are likely to have poor academic performance, and they would want to cheat on examinations in order to pass. Hence, test-anxiety may mediate the association between academic-procrastination and examination cheating behavior. This study emphasized examination cheating behavior among college students, and predominantly the mechanisms by which academic-procrastination affects examination cheating behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHypothetical model\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e provides a schematic representation of the direct and indirect influence pathways within a hypothetical model. This model is developed according to the concepts of Protection Motivation Theory (PMT). PMT informs how people choose to act when confronted with several threats, how to assess the danger and recognize it, and then counter this assessment with effective and efficacious modification options (Rogers, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1975\u003c/span\u003e). It is organized along with two pathways (i.e., the threat appraisal pathway and the coping appraisal pathway). The threat appraisal implies the publicity and the seriousness of the threat, whereas the coping appraisal stresses the essential effect of efficacy beliefs (Floyd et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). In this work, we operationalized academic-procrastination as experience, test-anxiety as threat appraisal, self-efficacy for self-regulation as coping appraisal, and cheating on examinations as behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcademic-procrastination as experience\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eprevious studies have claimed that academic procrastination is a common \u003cem\u003eexperience\u003c/em\u003e among students. For example, Sirin (2011) reported that academic procrastination is trouble experienced because of delaying academic tasks such as preparing term papers and preparing for examinations. Similarly, Yastibas’s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) finding indicated that academic procrastination is a commonly \u003cem\u003eexperienced\u003c/em\u003e issue among higher education students.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTest-anxiety as threat appraisal\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThreat appraisals\u003c/em\u003e are determined by perceived vulnerability and susceptibility to threats. In the psychological and educational literature, the anxieties that students attribute to classroom fear appeals are labeled as “test anxiety’’. It is a form of anxiety specific to certain situations, characterized by a tendency to view exams and similar assessments as sources of threat (Putwain \u0026amp; Best, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Hence, threat appeals might be considered a situational precursor to test anxiety.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSelf-efficacy for self-regulation as coping appraisal\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCoping appraisals\u003c/em\u003e are rely on coping self-efficacy. Coping self-efficacy is the belief that individuals can effectively perform protective actions (Tsai et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCheating on examinations as behavior\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCheating on examinations is an unethical \u003cem\u003ebehavio\u003c/em\u003er that some higher education students often choose when confronted with the prospect of failing an exam (Starovoytova \u0026amp; Namango, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). This shows that cheating on an examination is apparently unethical \u003cem\u003ebehavior.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe hypothetical model postulates the probable mediating effects of self-regulatory efficacy and test-anxiety in the linkbetween academic-procrastination and examination cheating. No study has yet to examine the mediating effects of self-regulation self-efficacy in the association between academic-procrastination and cheating on examinations among college students. As described in the model mentioned earlier, we hypothesized that self-regulation self-efficacy and test-anxiety can mediate the relationship between academic procrastination and examination cheating. This study aimed to: (1) investigate the associations among academic procrastination, self-efficacy for self-regulation, test-anxiety, and cheating on examinations and (2) examine the mediating effects of self-efficacy for self-regulation in the association between academic-procrastination and cheating on examinations.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eDesign and sampling\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis report presents a cross-sectional study aimed at examining variables that affect examination cheating behaviors among students at the college level. The study was conducted in [blinded for review], Ethiopia. Participants were recruited across the six departments–language, social science, mathematics, natural science, aesthetics, and education—at years 1–3. The sample was made up of 340 college students: language (64, 18.8%), social science (70, 20.6%), mathematics (50, 14.7%), natural science (54, 15.9%), aesthetics (52, 15.3%), and education (50, 14.7%). There were 176 male and 164 female students, with an age range of 18 to 24 years. Regarding study years, there were 134 (39.4%) students in their first year, 112 (32.9%) in their second year, and 94 (27.7%) in their third year.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eProcedure\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the hall of the college, 340 randomly selected students of the college were gathered. The informed consent of participants was assured through discussion. The participants were informed that there were no right or wrong answer. Then, the questionnaire booklet on academic procrastination, test-anxiety, self-efficacy for self-regulation, and examination cheating was handed out to the students. One of the researchers provided instances and clarifications on how students should complete the questionnaire, along with additional details and guidance. At first they needed to fill in the demographic questionnaire which requested them to write their gender, year, and department. The classroom’s chalkboard was used to display examples. Afterward, they were instructed to initiate the questionnaire by carefully reading the provided instructions. Sufficient time was allocated to enable participants to finish the questionnaires. To prevent the students from giving invalid answers to the questionnaire items, they were allowed to raise any questions or doubts while filling in the details.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll the booklets were collected when they were finished, and the researcher thanked the respondents and the assistants for their cooperation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMeasures\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA questionnaire survey consisted of two parts utilized in this study. The first part included demographic questions about participants, such as gender, department, and study year. The second part comprised questions measuring the constructs portrayed in the research model: cheating on an examination, academic-procrastination, self-efficacy for self-regulation, and test-anxiety. The majority of the items were borrowed from previous studies, with only a few adjustments made to align them with the specific context of the present study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eExamination cheating behavior\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eExamination cheating was assessed by the Academic Dishonesty Scale (Becker \u0026amp; Ulstad \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; McCabe \u0026amp; Trevino, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e), which consists of nine items, and assesses the prevalence of students’ examination cheating behavior (e.g., “I use notes or a textbook on an examination without the permission of my instructor”). Respondents replied on a scale ranging from 1, \u003cem\u003enever\u003c/em\u003e, to 5, \u003cem\u003emany times\u003c/em\u003e. McCabe and Trevino (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e) conveyed an acceptable internal consistency of the measurement with Cronbach’s α of 0.83. The scale has proved to have acceptable reliability and validity (Becker \u0026amp; Ulstad, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). In this study, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient was calculated to be 0.92.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAcademic-procrastination\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eProcrastination Assessment Scale—Students (Solomon \u0026amp; Rothblum, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1984\u003c/span\u003e) was used to measure academic-procrastination (e.g., “I usually delay before beginning on an academic activity I must do”). Respondents completed 10 items on a scale of 5 points, ranging from 1, \u003cem\u003enever procrastinate\u003c/em\u003e, to 5, \u003cem\u003ealways procrastinate\u003c/em\u003e, for each of the activities to demonstrate how often they delay on that task. The items were adapted for the context of the study. The score of the scale has confirmed satisfactory reliability and validity (Mortazavi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). The reliability coefficient of the Cronbach’s alpha was 0.88 for this study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSelf-efficacy for self-regulation\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe scale used to assess self-efficacy for self-regulation was the self-efficacy for self-regulated learning scale (Zimmerman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e). The scale accommodates 11 items, in particular, assessing respondents’ self-efficacy on using self-regulatory abilities and strategies across instructional areas (e.g., “I study when there are other interesting activities to do”; “I remember information presented in textbooks and class”). For example, the item: “I remember information presented in textbooks and class” was used to measure students’ self-efficacy for self-regulation ability by examining how well they could remember content presented in the textbooks and that they learned in class. The items were evaluated on a scale of 7 Likert-type points, from 1 (\u003cem\u003enot well at all\u003c/em\u003e) to 7 (\u003cem\u003every well\u003c/em\u003e) response choices. A greater rating suggests a greater degree of self-regulatory self-efficacy. Usher and Pajares (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e) obtained satisfactory reliability and validity of the scale score (α = 0.83). In this study, the Cronbach’s α was 0.92.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTest-anxiety\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe West side Test-anxiety scale (Driscoll, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e) was used to measure test-anxiety. The scale comprises 10 items (e.g., “The closer I get to the main examination, the more difficult it is for me to focus on the content”). The items were measured by a 5-point Likert-type scale, with answer choices ranging from 1 (\u003cem\u003enot at all or never true\u003c/em\u003e) to 5 (\u003cem\u003eextremely or always true).\u003c/em\u003e A higher rating demonstrates a higher degree of test anxiety. The scale rating has established adequate reliability and validity (Johnson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). The Cronbach's α was 0.89 in this study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistics were used to describe the research variable characteristics such as mean, standard deviations, frequency, and percentages. Variables related to examination cheating behavior were examined using the Pearson product-moment correlation, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e test, and one-way ANOVA. To test the mediation model in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, path analysis was conducted using the maximum estimate of likelihood. The model fit was estimated based on the following standards of the goodness of model fit: the chi-square (x\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e) test, the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker Lewis index (TLI), the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR). A non-significant (x\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e) value (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026gt; .05) suggests a path analysis model that fits the data well, while a significant (x\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e) value is indicative that the path analysis model does not fit the data (Shah, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). In addition, the subsequent cut-off values indicate acceptable fits to the model: CFI / TLI \u0026gt; .90 (Schreiber et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e), SRMR \u0026lt; .05, RMSEA .06 to .08 (Barbeau et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, indirect effects were tested using a 95% confidence interval bootstrap replication bootstrap approach: 5000 (Preacher \u0026amp; Hayes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). Indirect paths are significant while the complete mediation takes place when the direct path from academic-procrastination to examination cheating is no longer significant (MacKinnon et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). SPSS version 24, except for Path analysis in MPLUS 7, was used for analysis. Statistical value was set at 0.05.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eEthical consideration\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe research committee of the [blinded for review], Ethiopia approved this study. The ethical guidelines to be followed and the intent of the study were clarified before the questionnaires were administered to the students who volunteered to take part in the study. Consent was obtained from all respondents in the study through discussion. Confidentiality was assured by a comprehensive review of the data, and students’ identity was not reported anywhere on the questionnaire.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eExamination cheating behavior\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOf the 340 college students, 212 (62.35%) reported that they nearly always or always admitted to cheating on examinations. As depicted in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, which shows examination cheating behavior by participant characteristics, first Year College students had a higher mean score for cheating on examinations than second-year and third-year students. Furthermore, the post hoc result shows that first and second year students reported significantly higher mean scores for examination cheating than the third year students. No significant differences in examination cheating were noticed for other demographic variables, such as department or gender. However, male students reported a higher examination cheating mean score than their female counterparts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eStudy variables and inter-correlations\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e reveals that the mean scores for academic-procrastination, self-efficacy for self-regulation, test-anxiety, and examination cheating were 2.95 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e 1.07), 4.16 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e 1.64), 3.25 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e 1.10), and 3.25 (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e 1.07), respectively. The mean score for examination cheating was positively associated with the mean scores for academic-procrastination (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.231, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01) and test-anxiety (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.298, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01), and inversely linked with the mean score of self-efficacy for self-regulation (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.406, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01). In addition, the study variables were significantly interrelated.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eComparison of the means for examination cheating behavior based on the characteristics of the sample (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;340)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVariables\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSample Characteristics\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e (%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExamination cheating Means (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003et/F\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePost hoc\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGender\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.73\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e176 (51.8)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.34 (1.06)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e164 (48.2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.14 (0.07)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eDepartment/Major\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.77\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLanguage\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e64 (18.8)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.98 (0.92)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSocial science\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e70 (20.6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.43 (1.15)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMathematics\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e50 (14.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.22 (1.22)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNatural science\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e54 (15.9)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.33 (1.13)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAesthetics\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e52 (15.3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.42 (1.07)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEducation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e50 (14.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.09 (0.80)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eYear of study\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.34\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFirst year\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e134 (39.4)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.40 (0.96)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ea\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;b;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSecond year\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e112 (32.9)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.31 (1.16)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ea\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;c\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThird year\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e94 (27.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.95 (1.05)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eb\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;c\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"5\"\u003eNote. \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e: Standard Deviation *\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05, **\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInter-correlation coefficients between scores for academic procrastination, self-efficacy for self-regulation, test-anxiety, and examination cheating among students at College level (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;340)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVariables\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMean (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSkewness\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKurtosis\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePASS score\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSESR score\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTA score\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePASS score\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.95 (1.07)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.192\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-1.110\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSESR score\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.16 (1.64)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.129\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-1.319\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.408\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTA score\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.25 (1.10)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.123\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-1.175\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.342\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.226\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eECh score\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.25 (1.07)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.112\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-1.167\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.231\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.406\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.298\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003eNote. \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e standard deviation, \u003cem\u003ePASS\u003c/em\u003e procrastination assessment scale-students, \u003cem\u003eSESR\u003c/em\u003e self-efficacy for self-regulated learning, \u003cem\u003eTA\u003c/em\u003e Test-anxiety scale, \u003cem\u003eECh\u003c/em\u003e examination cheating scale\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003e**: \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTesting the hypothesized path analysis model and mediational roles\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e presents the final structural model of the association between academic procrastination and examination cheating behavior through test-anxiety and self-efficacy for self-regulation. The model verified acceptable fit reflected by x\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e(1)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.49, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.06, CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.986, TLI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.918, SRMR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.026, RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.068. Solid lines and dotted lines represented statistically significant and insignificant paths, respectively. The present model demonstrated 20% of the variance in examination cheating behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e reveals that the overall indirect impact of academic-procrastination on examination cheating by test-anxiety and self-efficacy for self-regulation was .22, 95% CI [.16, .28], from which the indirect impact of academic-procrastination on examination cheating by self-regulatory self-efficacy was .15, 95% CI [.10, .19], and through test-anxiety it was .07, 95% CI [.04, .11].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe confidence interval for indirect effects did not include zero, indicating significant indirect effects by the two mediators. Academic-procrastination\u0026rsquo;s direct impact on examination cheating was .01, 95% CI [\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.09, .11]. On the other hand, confidence intervals for the direct effect included zero, which indicated complete mediation, suggesting an insignificant direct effect. The indirect to overall impact ratio was 97.3%, with the indirect effect of academic-procrastination on examination cheating by the prevalence of self-efficacy for self-regulation. Students\u0026rsquo; years of study did not have a significant effect on cheating on an examination as a covariate.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIndirect impacts of academic procrastination of college students on their examination cheating behavior through suggested mediators (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;340)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMediators\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEstimates\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e95% BC Bootstrap CI\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSE\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLL\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUL\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe\u0026nbsp;two\u0026nbsp;Mediators\u0026rsquo; total\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.22\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.03\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.16\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.28\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSelf-efficacy for self-regulation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.15\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.03\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.19\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTest-anxiety\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.07\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.02\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.04\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"5\"\u003eNote. \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e standard error, \u003cem\u003eLL\u003c/em\u003e lower limit, \u003cem\u003eUL\u003c/em\u003e upper limit, \u003cem\u003eBC\u003c/em\u003e bootstrap, \u003cem\u003eCI\u003c/em\u003e bias-corrected confidence intervals\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"5\"\u003e**: \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eSeveral prior studies reported the different views of students on cheating on examinations depending on their culture and their educational level (Magnus et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). In line with this, a tremendous number of earlier researchers investigated the extent and explanations for cheating. For example, Bunn et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e) interviewed U.S. graduates in economics and found that several students were cheating, that the better the student, the less probable it was that he or she had cheated, and that there is a greater likelihood of cheating once if the student thinks others are cheating. As such, an examination of the prevalence rate and variables associated with examination cheating is crucial to understanding and preventing examination cheating behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNowadays, cheating on examinations has become a common occurrence, and with technology becoming more advanced every day, higher education cheating is growing and has become a global issue (Bazoukis \u0026amp; Dimoliatis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Consequently, there have been reports of high rates of examination cheating behavior in numerous countries. For example, Hosny and Fatima (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) suggested that the rate of college students who cheated was up to 90% (Hosny \u0026amp; Fatima, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). The same study revealed that over the school year, 95% of students cheated on examinations (Khodaie et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). In line with the reports of previous studies (e.g., Barzegar \u0026amp; Khezri, 2012; Davis et al., 1992; Desalegn \u0026amp; Berhan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), in this study, the prevalence of self-reported accounts of examination cheating students was high (i.e., 62.35% ). This shows that cheating on examinations is a common misbehaving activity among college students. Hence, the prevalence generally shows that cheating on examinations has become maladaptive and prevalent among participants in this study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrom the above discussion and results of this study, it can be understood that there must be concern about the high pervasiveness of examination cheating actions among college students. The first phase of developing operational interventions to decrease examination cheating behavior is to comprehend factors related to examination cheating behavior and their working mechanisms. In connection to this, the present study found that academic-procrastination was positively correlated with examination cheating behavior amongst college students, which was consistent with previous studies (e.g., Roig \u0026amp; DeTommaso, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e; Patrzek et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). It indicated that reducing college students\u0026rsquo; academic-procrastination may reduce their examination cheating behavior. Furthermore, our expectations about the mediating effects of test-anxiety and self-efficacy for self-regulation on the association between academic-procrastination and examination cheating behavior were confirmed. Although there were implications of how academic-procrastination impacts examination cheating behavior, a decisive indication concerning this issue was inadequate. These study findings provide a new perspective to recognize the relationship between academic-procrastination and examination cheating behavior by the mediating effects of test-anxiety and self-efficacy for self-regulation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCollege students\u0026rsquo; self-efficacy for self-regulation score was inversely correlated with their examination cheating behavior, and mediated the association between academic-procrastination and examination cheating behavior. This result contributes sustenance to the essential effect of self-efficacy for self-regulation on examination cheating, which was similar to the findings of prior studies. Previous studies suggested that negative effects on affective self-regulation affected the acceptability and probability of cheating (d\u0026rsquo;Arripe-Longueville et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Besides, college students with a high degree of self-efficacy to regulate their learning were found to be less disposed to cheat on examinations. In line with this study, Ng (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) found a significant negative path between procrastination and self-regulated learning (β = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.34). The negative links of academic-procrastination with self-regulatory efficacy show that when college students perceive procrastination, their self-regulatory efficacy decreases, which may result in cheating on an examination. Interventions to enhance self-efficacy for self-regulation (SESR) might, therefore, be essential to decrease examination cheating amongst college students, especially for those with higher academic procrastination.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTest-anxiety was positively correlated with examination cheating behavior, which was consistent with previous studies (Titilope \u0026amp; Faleye, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). The mediating effect of test-anxiety on the link between academic-procrastination and examination cheating has been proposed in prior studies but lacked a decisive indication of a mediation role. Chronic procrastinators exhibit substantially greater anxiety rates (Scher \u0026amp; Osterman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Steel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). Hence, students who regularly procrastinate may develop a constricted lifestyle in trying to avoid positive activities which may expose them to the hazard of failing an examination. Consequently, they may cheat. At this point, Bassey and Iruoje (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) demonstrated that test-anxiety was a predictor of students\u0026rsquo; cheating tendencies in examinations. Our study noticeably showed the mediating effect of test-anxiety in understanding why college students who are high academic procrastinators are more likely to be involved in cheating on examinations. Hence, conquering test anxiety can be an intervention strategy for preventing or reducing examination cheating among college students, particularly those with higher academic procrastination.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTherefore, it is worth noting that, while previous research has revealed only the direct associations of self-efficacy for self-regulation (SESR) and test anxiety with academic procrastination and examination cheating behavior, our research revealed that these two variables (i.e., self-efficacy for self-regulation (SESR) and test anxiety) also have potential mediating effects for the link between academic procrastination and examination cheating behavior. The focus should also be the indirect effect of academic procrastination on students\u0026rsquo; examination cheating behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eImplications\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe results of the present study show that the reduction and prevention of examination cheating behavior must be part of the all-inclusive learning approach. Targeted interventions include overcoming academic-procrastination and test-anxiety, and improving self-efficacy for self-regulation. Given the widespread occurrence and adverse outcomes associated with academic procrastination, it becomes evident that educators require resources to mitigate this behavior and promote improved learning and self-regulation skills among all college-level students. To help college students reduce their academic procrastination, teachers should scaffold them to adopt effective strategies and to replace their maladaptive patterns with more helpful and efficient learning habits. The three-tiered anti-procrastination (T-TAP) model suggests that students with scaffolding support can diminish their academic-procrastination and enhance their self-efficacy and self-regulation skills (Xu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). These interventions focusing on preventing college students\u0026rsquo; academic-procrastination can indirectly prevent or reduce cheating on examinations by encouraging self-efficacy for self-regulation and diminishing test-anxiety. The results of this study emphasize the importance of encouraging self-regulation efficacy, which is a prerequisite for helping college students improve their self-regulatory skills, such as meta-cognitive strategies and time management, and then provide better possibilities for accomplishment in the usage of self-regulation abilities to enhance students\u0026rsquo; feelings of proficiency (Hogan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). This study\u0026rsquo;s results also highlight the relevance of reducing test-anxiety. Teachers should provide frequent feedback before and after tests to reduce the test-anxiety levels of learners, and give them the chance to express how they felt about examinations, which may have an impact on their anxiety levels. Moreover, Acceptance Commitment Therapy might be important to reduce test-anxiety (Twohig et al., 2017) and decrease cheating on examinations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLimitations\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite its contributions, there are also some limitations to the present study. To begin with, a study sample from one College of teacher education in Ethiopia may be unrepresentative of the general college student population, so the results may not be easily generalized to others. More diverse research is required to generalize our study findings to different contexts. Second, the findings of self-reported questionnaires in the present study are probably prejudiced, despite the reliable and valid scale scores. Third, for this study, we did not ask students\u0026rsquo; opinions on their means and reasons for cheating or the situations in which they cheat, but rather how often they had cheated, and potential variables connected to their cheating behavior. For future research, investigating the cheating mechanisms and why the students cheat on examinations would be relevant. Furthermore, the cross-sectional design cannot conclude that the variables of the study are causally related. Hence, longitudinal studies are necessary to prove causality.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003ePreventing examination cheating behavior is vitally necessary to the college of teacher education students. The present study provides preliminary evidence that self-efficacy for self-regulation and test anxiety are potential mediators in the link between academic procrastination and examination cheating behavior. Examination cheating behavior might be reduced by overcoming academic-procrastination and test-anxiety and improving self-efficacy for self-regulation. What\u0026rsquo;s more, to prevent examination cheating behavior among college students with higher academic procrastination, interventions could be considered to target the conquest of test-anxiety and improvement of self-efficacy for self-regulation depending on their mediation roles in the association between academic-procrastination and examination cheating behavior.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBarbeau K, Boileau K, Sarr F, Smith K (2019) Path analysis in mplus: A tutorial using a conceptual model of psychological and behavioral antecedents of bulimic symptoms in young adults. Quant Methods Psychol 15(1):38\u0026ndash;53. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.20982/tqmp.15.1.p038\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.20982/tqmp.15.1.p038\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBarzegar K, Khezr H (2012) Predicting academic cheating among the fifth-grade students: The role of self-efficacy and academic self-handicapping. J Life Sci Biomed 2(1):1\u0026ndash;6\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBassey B, Iruoje J (2016) Test-anxiety, attitude to schooling, parental influence, and peer pressure as predictors of students cheating tendencies in examination in Edo State, Nigeria. Global J Social Sci 15(1):39\u0026ndash;46. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.4314/gjss.v15i1.4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4314/gjss.v15i1.4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBazoukis G, Dimoliatis IDK (2011) Cheating in medical schools in Greece: quantitative evaluation and recommendations for resolving the problem. Arch Hell Med 28(3):390\u0026ndash;399\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBecker DAA, Ulstad I (2007) Gender differences in student ethics: Are females really more ethical? Plagiary 2:77\u0026ndash;91\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBunn DN, Caudill SB, Gropper DM (1992) Crime in the classroom: An economic analysis of undergraduate student cheating behavior. J Econ Educ 23(3):197\u0026ndash;207\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChapman KJ, Davis R, Toy D, Wright L (2016) Academic integrity in the business school environment: I\u0026rsquo;ll get by with a little help from my friends. J Mark Educ 26(3):236\u0026ndash;249. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1177/0273475304268779\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0273475304268779\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDesalegn AA, Berhan A (2014) Cheating on examinations and its predictors among undergraduate students at Hawassa University College of medicine and health science, Hawassa, Ethiopia. BMC Med Educ, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e (1), Article 89.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ed\u0026rsquo;Arripe-Longueville F, Corrion K, Scoffier S, Roussel P, Chalabaev A (2010) Sociocognitive self-regulatory mechanisms governing judgments of the acceptability and likelihood of sports cheating. J Sport Exerc Psychol 32(5):595\u0026ndash;618\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDriscoll R (2007) Westside test anxiety scale validation. Education Resources Information Center. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED495968.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED495968.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDodeen HM (2012) Undergraduate student cheating in exams. Damascus Univ J 28(1):37\u0026ndash;55\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFida R, Tramontano C, Paciello M, Ghezzi V, Barbaranelli C (2018) Understanding the interplay among regulatory self-efficacy, moral disengagement, and academic cheating behavior during vocational education: a three-wave study. J Bus Ethics 153(3):725\u0026ndash;740\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFinn KV, Frone MR (2004) Academic performance and cheating: Moderating role of school identification and self-efficacy. J Educational Res 97(3):115\u0026ndash;121. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.3200/JOER.97.3.115-121\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3200/JOER.97.3.115-121\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFloyd DL, Prentice-Dunn S, Rogers RW (2000) A meta‐analysis of research on protection motivation theory. J Appl Soc Psychol 30(2):407\u0026ndash;429. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02323.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02323.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHogan MJ, Dwyer CP, Harney OM, Noone C, Conway RJ (2015) Metacognition: Fundaments, applications, and trends. In: Pe\u0026ntilde;a-Ayala A (ed) Metacognitive skill development and applied systems science: A framework of metacognitive skills, self-regulatory functions, and real-world applications. Springer, Berlin, Germany, pp 75\u0026ndash;106\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHopp C, Speil A (2020) How prevalent is plagiarism among college students? Anonymity preserving evidence from Austrian undergraduates. Account Res 1\u0026ndash;16. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003edoi.org/10.1080/08989621.2020.1804880\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/08989621.2020.1804880\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHosny M, Fatima S (2014) Attitude of students towards cheating and plagiarism: University case study. J Appl Sci 14(8):748\u0026ndash;757. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.3923/jas.2014.748.757\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3923/jas.2014.748.757\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHowell AJ, Watson DC (2007) Procrastination: Associations with achievement goal orientation and learning strategies. Personal-ity Individual Differences 43:167\u0026ndash;178. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.paid.2006.11.017\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.paid.2006.11.017\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHowell AJ, Watson DC, Powell RA, Buro K (2006) Aca-demic procrastination: The pattern and correlates of behavioral post-ponement. Pers Indiv Differ 40:1519\u0026ndash;1530. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.023\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.023\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJalilian F, Moazami P, Mirzaei-Alavijeh M, Moazami AM, Jalili C (2016) Sensation seeking and the intention to cheating among college students: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Res J Appl Sci 11(8):645\u0026ndash;649\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJimma KA (2019) Integrity \u0026lsquo;deflation\u0026rsquo;: Preparatory students\u0026rsquo; perceptions and practices of ac demic cheating behaviors. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Social Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1(\u003c/em\u003e8\u003cem\u003e)\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/integrity-%e2%80%98deflation%e2%80%99%3a-preparatory-students%e2%80%99-and-of/fe662d4b58b8503fd2c9f271ba481906f16835cd\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/integrity-%e2%80%98deflation%e2%80%99%3a-preparatory-students%e2%80%99-and-of/fe662d4b58b8503fd2c9f271ba481906f16835cd\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJohnson CM, Larson HA, Conn SR, Estes LA, Ghibellini AB (2009) March 19\u0026ndash;23). \u003cem\u003eThe impact of relaxation techniques on third-grade students' self-perceived levels of test anxiety.\u003c/em\u003e [Paper presentation]. American Counseling Association Annual Conference and Exposition, Charlotte, NC\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKhodaie E, Moghadamzadeh A, Salehi K (2011) Factors affecting the probability of academic cheating school students in Tehran. Procedia-Social Behav Sci 29:1587\u0026ndash;1595. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.401\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.401\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKiekkas P, Michalopoulos E, Stefanopoulos N, Samartzi K, Krania P, Giannikopoulou M, Igoumenidis M (2020) Reasons for academic dishonesty during examinations among nursing students: Cross-sectional survey. \u003cem\u003eNurse Education Today\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e86\u003c/em\u003e, 104314. doi.10.1016/j.nedt.2019.104314\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLuszczynska A, Schwarzer R (2015) Social cognitive theory. In: Conner M, Norman P (eds) Predicting and changing health behaviour: Research and practice with social cognition models. Open University, pp 225\u0026ndash;251\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMacKinnon DP, Fairchild AJ, Fritz MS (2007) Mediation analysis. Ann Rev Psychol 58:593\u0026ndash;614\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMagnus JR, Polterovich VM, Danilov DL, Savvateev AV (2002) Tolerance of cheating: An analysis across countries. J Econ Educ 33(2):125\u0026ndash;135. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/00220480209596462\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00220480209596462\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMccabe DL, Trevino LK (1997) Individual and contextual influences on academic dishonesty: A multicampus investigation. Res High Educt 38(3):379\u0026ndash;396\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMortazavi F, Mortazavi SS, Khosrorad R (2015) Psychometric properties of the procrastination assessment scale-student (PASS) in a student sample of Sabzevar University of medical sciences. Iran Red Crescent Med J 17(9). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.5812/ircmj.28328\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5812/ircmj.28328\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNg B (2018) Exploring procrastination and self-regulated learning through motivational beliefs. J Res Initiatives, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(3), Article 11.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePatrzek J, Sattler S, van Veen F, Grunschel C, Fries S (2015) Investigating the effect of academic procrastination on the frequency and variety of academic misconduct: a panel study. Stud High Educ 40(6):1014\u0026ndash;1029. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/03075079.2013.854765\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/03075079.2013.854765\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePreacher KJ, Hayes AF (2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav Res Methods 40(3):879\u0026ndash;891\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePutarek V, Pavlin-Bernardić N (2019) The role of self-efficacy for self-regulated learning, achievement goals, and engagement in academic cheating. Eur J Psychol Educ. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1007/s10212-019-00443-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10212-019-00443-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePutwain DW, Best N (2012) Do highly test anxious students respond differentially to fear appeals made prior to a test? Res Educ 88(1):1\u0026ndash;10\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRobinson E, Amburgey R, Swank E, Faulkner C (2004) Test cheating in a rural college: Studying the importance of individual and situational factors. Coll Student J 38(3):380\u0026ndash;396\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRoig M, Detommaso L (1995) Are college cheating and plagiarism related to academic procrastination? Psychol Rep 77:691\u0026ndash;698. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.2466/pr0.1995.77.2.691\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2466/pr0.1995.77.2.691\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRogers RW (1975) A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change1. J Psychol 91(1):93\u0026ndash;114. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/00223980.1975.9915803\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00223980.1975.9915803\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eScher SJ, Osterman NM (2002) Procrastination, conscientiousness, anxiety, and goals: Exploring the measurement and correlates of procrastination among school-aged children. Psychol Sch 39(4):385\u0026ndash;398. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1002/pits.10045\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/pits.10045\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchreiber JB, Nora A, Stage FK, Barlow EA, King J (2006) Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. J Educational Res 99(6):323\u0026ndash;338. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSenecal C, Koestner R, Vallerand RJ (1995) Self-Regulation and academic procrastination. J Soc Psychol 135(5):607\u0026ndash;619. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/00224545.1995.9712234\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00224545.1995.9712234\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShah RB (2012) A multivariate analysis technique: Structural equation modeling. Asian J Multidimensional Res 1(4):73\u0026ndash;81\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eŞirin EF (2011) Academic procrastination among undergraduates attending school of physical education and sports: Role of general procrastination, academic motivation and academic self-efficacy. \u003cem\u003eEducational Research and Reviews\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(5), 447\u0026ndash;455. doi.10.5897/ERR.9000020\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSolomon LJ, Rothblum ED (1984) Academic procrastination: frequency and cognitive behavioral correlates. J Couns Psychol 31(4):503\u0026ndash;509. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1037/0022-0167.31.4.503\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0022-0167.31.4.503\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStarovoytova D, Namango S (2016) Factors Affecting Cheating-Behavior at Undergraduate-Engineering. J Educ Pract 7(31):66\u0026ndash;82. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JEP\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JEP\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSteel P (2007) The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychol Bull 133(1):65\u0026ndash;94. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTitilope RO, Faleye BA (2016) August 29th -31st). \u003cem\u003ePath analytic investigation of cheating behavior in assessments in Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria\u003c/em\u003e [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of INCEDI 2016 Conference (pp.763\u0026ndash;772), Accra, Ghana\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTsai HYS, Jiang M, Alhabash S, LaRose R, Rifon NJ, Cotten SR (2016) Understanding online safety behaviors: A protection motivation theory perspective. Computers Secur 59:138\u0026ndash;150. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.cose.2016.02.009\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.cose.2016.02.009\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTwohig MP, Levin ME (2017) Acceptance and commitment therapy as a treatment for anxiety and depression: A review. Psychiatric Clin 40(4):751\u0026ndash;770. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.psc.2017.68.009\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.psc.2017.68.009\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUsher EL, Pajares F (2008) Self-Efficacy for self-regulated learning: A validation study. Educ Psychol Meas 68(3):443\u0026ndash;463. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1177/0013164407308475\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0013164407308475\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXu Z (2015) Just do it! Reducing academic-procrastination of secondary students. Intervention School Clin 51(4):212\u0026ndash;219. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1177/1053451215589178\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/1053451215589178\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYastibaS AE (2020) Understanding and Dealing with Academic Procrastination. \u003cem\u003ei-Manager's Journal on English Language Teaching\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.26634/jelt.10.1.16559\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.26634/jelt.10.1.16559\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZeidner M (2010) Test-anxiety. In I. In: Weiner B, Craighead WE (eds) the Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology. John Wiley \u0026amp; Sons, Inc., pp 1\u0026ndash;3\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang Y, Dong S, Fang W, Chai X, Mei J, Fan X (2018) Self-efficacy for self-regulation and fear of failure as mediators between self-esteem and academic-procrastination among undergraduates in health professions. Adv Health Sci Educ 23(4):817\u0026ndash;830. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1007/s10459-018-9832-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10459-018-9832-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZimmerman BJ, Bandura A, Martinez-Pons M (1992) Self-Motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. Am Educ Res J 29(3):663\u0026ndash;676. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.3102/00028312029003663\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3102/00028312029003663\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"National Taiwan University of Science and Technology","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Academic Procrastination, Self-Efficacy for Self-Regulation, Test-Anxiety, Examination Cheating","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7146362/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7146362/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eExam Cheating has been a common misbehaving activity amongst higher education level students. This study was aimed at examining the prevalence of exam cheating behavior amongst college students, and explore the mediating roles of self-efficacy for self-regulation and test-anxiety in the association between academic-procrastination and exam cheating behavior. A cross-sectional design was used for the study of 340 Ethiopian college students. Respondents completed measures of exam cheating behavior, academic procrastination, self-efficacy for self-regulation, and test-anxiety. Pearson correlation was used to assess the bivariate associations, and path analysis was used to investigate mediation. Amongst the 340 college students, about 212 (62.35%) admitted to cheating in exams. The score for exam cheating was positively correlated with scores for academic-procrastination and test-anxiety, and negatively correlated with the score for self-efficacy for self-regulation. Moreover, the association between academic-procrastination and exam cheating was fully mediated by the indirect effect of self-efficacy for self-regulation: β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.15, 95% bootstrap CI .10 to .19 and indirect effect of test-anxiety: β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.07, 95% CI .04 to .11 bootstrap. The results indicate that interventions aimed at developing self-efficacy for self-regulation and test-anxiety conquest may prevent or lessen exam cheating behaviors among college students, particularly for those with high academic procrastination.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Does Academic-Procrastination predict College Students’ Exam Cheating Behaviour?: the Mediational effects of Self-Efficacy for Self-Regulation and Test-Anxiety","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-07-18 13:49:53","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7146362/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"4baf720b-e084-4ba0-9d2e-f6e42447c240","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 18th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":51674555,"name":"Psychology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-07-18T13:49:53+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-07-18 13:49:53","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7146362","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7146362","identity":"rs-7146362","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}