The structural model explains 71.6% of variance in GenAI-assisted learning procrastination and 58.5% in behavioral intention¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The TPB-based model explained 58.5% of the variance in behavioral intention (R2 = 0.585) and 71.6% of the variance in GenAI-assisted learning procrastination (R2 = 0.716). → Li Zilin 2026

Evidence¶

Li Zilin 2026¶

Li Zilin, Huang Jiali, Cui Zhaodi. (2026). GenAI Use and GenAI-Assisted Learning Procrastination in University Students: The Roles of Planned Behavior Constructs and Learning GenAI Anxiety. Behavioral Sciences. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs16071256

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Variance-explained figures reported in the moderated indirect association analysis section for the structural model fitted to the 1243-student cross-sectional survey data.

"The model explained 58.5% of the variance in BI (R2 = 0.585) and 71.6% of the variance in GALP (R2 = 0.716)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• University students' use of GenAI for learning task completion is negatively associated with GenAI-assisted learning procrastination — related
• Learning GenAI anxiety moderates the intention–procrastination association, which is negative and significant at high anxiety but absent at low anxiety — related
• Behavioral attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and behavioral intention are each negatively associated with GenAI-assisted learning procrastination — related
• TPB constructs indirectly link GenAI use to lower GenAI-assisted learning procrastination, accounting for about 30.9% of the total association — related
• GenAI use is positively associated with attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and behavioral intention toward GenAI-assisted learning — related