Cited by 37Technology Adoption and User BehaviourArtificial Intelligence in EducationAI in Service Interactions

What influences college students using AI for academic writing? - A quantitative analysis based on HISAM and TRI theory

Open access
Cui, Yulu·2025·Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies have been widely adopted as tools for academic writing, sparking interest in the factors that influence their adoption. However, existing research has predominantly focused on cognitive factors, such as perceived usefulness and ease of use, while giving insufficient attention to emotional motivations (e.g., perceived enjoyment, emotional engagement) in students' use of AI tools. This gap has led to a somewhat oversimplified or incomplete understanding of the factors influencing students' adoption of AI technologies. This study constructs a theoretical framework based on the Hedonic Information System Acceptance Model (HISAM) and the Technology Readiness Index (TRI), and employs Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to analyze survey data from 148 university students. The study finds that students' intention to use AI tools is influenced not only by cognitive evaluations, such as perceived usefulness and ease of use, but also by emotional factors, including technological optimism and perceived enjoyment. Perceived enjoyment, as a positive emotional factor in the interaction process, significantly promotes students' usage intention. Additionally, technological optimism, as a positive aspect of technology readiness, has a direct positive effect on perceived enjoyment. Furthermore, although negative experiences such as technical discomfort and insecurity have a minor impact on the evaluation of AI tool functionality, they still affect students' emotional experiences, thereby influencing their usage intention. The study suggests that future AI tool designs should prioritize enhancing students' emotional experiences by providing personalized feedback and optimizing user interfaces to improve ease of use. Moreover, increasing the tool’s interpretability and transparency can help reduce the risks of misuse, such as academic dishonesty or a decline in learning ability, which may arise from negative emotional experiences.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100391

Cites

74 of 74 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cui, Y.
Affiliations
Xinyang Normal University (CN)
Corresponding author
Cui, Yulu
Venue
Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2025-06
Volume
8
Pages
100391
ISSN
2666-920X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4408252164
Cited by
26
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 11
FWCI
26.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Computers and Education Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China (23C10205010)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
Keywords
university students, Technology Readiness Index, perceived enjoyment, technological optimism, intention to use, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, AI tool design, academic dishonesty

About these checks

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

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

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

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

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