Attitude toward cheating among Ghanaian undergraduate students: a parallel mediational analysis of personality, religiosity and mastery

Figures & data

Figure 1. Hypothesized model with mastery and religiosity as mediators between conscientiousness and attitude toward cheating

Figure 2. Observed model with mastery and religiosity mediating the relationship between conscientiousness and attitude toward cheating; a = X influences mediator pathway, b = M influences Y pathway and c’ = direct effect pathway. *p < .05

Table 1. Descriptive and correlation analysis of study variables (N = 329)

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Attitude toward cheating	—
2. Extraversion	.08	—
3. Agreeableness	.17**	.12*	—
4. Conscientiousness	.21**	.19**	.40**	—
5. Neuroticism	−.18**	−.37**	−.43**	−.50**	—
6. Openness	.05	.11*	.12*	.18**	−.12*	—
7. Mastery	.29**	.20**	.22**	.33**	−.44**	.18**	—
8. Religiosity	.19**	.14*	.31**	.29**	−.19**	.12**	.11	—
Min-Max	−31-32	14–37	15–40	20–45	8–36	22–49	9–24	43–101
Mean	4.12	25.06	31.14	33.19	22.12	36.31	17.41	85.01
Standard deviation	10.58	4.50	4.40	5.01	5.00	4.49	3.02	9.84
Cronbach alpha (α)	.64	.64	.69	.70	.67	.58	.64	.89

Note. *p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01

Table 2. Summary of hierarchical regression of personality traits, religiosity, and mastery on attitude toward cheating

Steps	Predictor variables	B	SE B	β	t	p	95% CI
							LB	UB
1	(Constant)	−9.16	9.73		−0.94	0.35	−28.30	9.98
	Extraversion	0.03	0.14	0.01	0.22	0.827	−0.24	0.30
	Agreeableness	0.18	0.15	0.08	1.22	0.224	−0.11	0.47
	Conscientiousness	0.28	0.14	0.14	2.09	0.038	0.02	0.55
	Neuroticism	−0.16	0.15	−0.08	−1.10	0.273	−0.45	0.13
	Openness	0.03	0.130	0.01	0.21	0.836	−0.23	0.28
2	(Constant)	−29.07	10.40		−2.80	0.005	−49.53	−8.61
	Extraversion	−0.02	0.13	−0.01	−0.11	0.913	−0.28	0.25
	Agreeableness	0.11	0.15	0.04	0.71	0.477	−0.19	0.40
	Conscientiousness	0.16	0.14	0.08	1.19	0.235	−0.11	0.43
	Neuroticism	0.00	0.15	0.00	0.01	0.992	−0.29	0.29
	Openness	−0.05	0.13	−0.02	−0.41	0.684	−0.30	0.20
	Religiosity	0.14	0.06	0.13	2.34	0.020	0.02	0.26
	Mastery	0.85	0.21	0.24	4.06	0.000	0.44	1.25

Note. *p ≤ 0.05; DV: Attitude toward cheating; 95% CI = Confidence Intervals; LB = Lower Bound; UB = Upper Bound

Table 3. Summary of standardized total, direct and indirect effects of path model analysis

Paths	Total effects			Direct effects			Indirect effects			SMC
	β	p-value	95% CI	β	p-value	95% CI	β	p-value	95% CI
X→M1	0.33	<0.001	0.23, 0.42	0.33	<0.001	0.23, 0.42				M1 = 0.08
X→M2	0.29	<0.001	0.20, 0.37	0.29	<0.001	0.20, 0.37				M2 = 0.11
M1→Y	0.24	<0.001	0.12, 0.35	0.24	<0.001	0.12, 0.35				Y = 0.11
M2→Y	0.14	0.012	0.03, 0.24	0.14	0.012	0.03, 0.24
X→Y	0.21	0.001	0.10, 0.31	0.09	0.133	−0.02, 0.20	0.12	<0.001	0.07, 0.18

Note. β = standardized coefficient; 95% CI = confidence interval; Bootstrapped samples = 5000. BLL = Bootstrapped Lower Limit; BUL = Bootstrapped Upper Limit; Conscientiousness (X); mastery (M₁); religiosity (M₂); attitude toward cheating (Y); SMC = square multiple correlations