Cited by 17Artificial Intelligence in EducationTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourAI in Service Interactions

Nexus between generative AI engagement, quality and expectation formation: an application of expectation–confirmation theory

Open access
Nguyen, Mai, Mehrotra, Ankit, Malik, Ashish, Pandey, Rudresh·2025·Journal of Enterprise Information Management

Abstract

Purpose: Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen-AI) has provided new opportunities and challenges in using educational environments for students’ interaction and knowledge acquisition. Based on the expectation–confirmation theory, this paper aims to investigate the effect of different constructs associated with Gen-AI on engagement, satisfaction and word-of-mouth. Design/methodology/approach: We collected data from 508 students in the UK using Qualtrics, a prominent online data collection platform. The conceptual framework was analysed through structural equation modelling. Findings: The findings show that Gen-AI expectation formation and Gen-AI quality help to boost Gen-AI engagement. Further, we found that active engagement positively affects Gen-AI satisfaction and positive word of mouth. The mediating role of Gen-AI expectation confirmation between engagement and the two outcomes, satisfaction and positive word of mouth, was also confirmed. The moderating role of cognitive processing in the relationship between Gen-AI quality and engagement was found. Originality/value: This paper extends the Expectation-Confirmation Theory on how Gen-AI can enhance students’ engagement and satisfaction. Suggestions for future research are derived to advance beyond the confines of the current study and to capture the development in the use of AI in education.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/jeim-08-2024-0452

Cites

88 of 88 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.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 89 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nguyen, M., Mehrotra, A., Malik, A., & Pandey, R.
Affiliations
  • Jaipuria Institute of Management (IN)
  • UNSW Canberra (AU)
  • IMS Ghaziabad (IN)
Corresponding author
Mehrotra, Ankit
Venue
Journal of Enterprise Information Management
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2025-03-04
Volume
38
Issue
3
Pages
798-820
ISSN
  • 1741-0398 (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-7409
OpenAlex
W4408138651
Cited by
16
References
89
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 6
FWCI
16.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Enterprise Information Management (publishedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
Keywords
generative AI, artificial intelligence in education, student engagement, expectations formation, expectation confirmation theory, student satisfaction, word of mouth, cognitive processes, technology acceptance

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