CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 104Creativity in Education and NeuroscienceArtificial Intelligence in EducationDesign Education and Practice

The influence of generative artificial intelligence on creative cognition of design students: a chain mediation model of self-efficacy and anxiety

Open access
Hwang, Younjung, Wu, Yi·2025·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1455015PMC PMC11808137
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Introduction: This study investigated the role of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) in enhancing the creative cognition of design students, examining the mediating effects of self-efficacy and anxiety reduction. Methods: A quantitative approach was employed, collecting data through online surveys from 121 design students at universities in southern China. The study utilized scales for AI knowledge and perception, self-efficacy, anxiety, and creative cognition, adapted from previous studies and evaluated on 5-point Likert scales. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS 24.0 for exploratory factor analysis and PROCESS v3.5 for mediation analysis. Results: The findings confirmed that AI positively impacted students’ innovative thinking (* β * = 0.610, * p * < 0.001). Self-efficacy (standardized * β * = 0.256, 95% CI [0.140, 0.418], * p * < 0.001) and anxiety reduction (standardized * β * = 0.093, 95% CI [0.018, 0.195], * p * < 0.05) positively mediated the relationship between generative AI and creative cognition. Additionally, a serial mediation effect through self-efficacy and anxiety reduction was observed (standardized * β * = 0.053, 95% CI [0.012, 0.114], * p * < 0.05). Discussion: Our empirical analysis demonstrates that AI positively affects design students’ innovative thinking, with self-efficacy and anxiety reduction serving as significant mediators. These findings provide valuable insights for educators and policymakers, suggesting that AI-integrated design curricula can significantly foster creative cognition, promote academic achievement, and enhance designer capabilities. Understanding AI’s impact on students’ creative processes is crucial for developing effective teaching strategies in today’s evolving educational landscape.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1455015

Cites

72 of 78 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Various prior studies report designers often perceive enhanced confidence and reduced anxiety and cognitive load when using AI tools, particularly in early-stage, concept-development tasks.

    “various prior studies report designers often perceive enhanced confidence and reduced anxiety and cognitive load when using AI tools [3, 42], particularly in early-stage, concept-development tasks [18].”

    From Decoupling of Usefulness and Novelty: Evaluating the Impact of Generative AI on Design Outputs and Novice Designers' Creative Thinking (2026) · cites this paper as [42]

    The Literature review (‘Anxiety as a mediator’; page unavailable) reports a survey in which design students using AI-assisted creative tools felt less pressured and more confident, supporting the confidence and anxiety portion. Our copy does not report that designers perceived reduced cognitive load (searched: ‘cognitive load’). The early-stage, concept-development qualifier is attached to a different citation in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Kim S. W. Lee Y. (2022). The artificial intelligence literacy scale for middle school students. J. Korea Soc. Comput. Inf. 27, 225– 238. doi: 10.9708/jksci.2022.27.03.225 · DOI
  2. Maddux J. E. (Ed.) (2013). Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hwang, Y., & Wu, Y.
Affiliations
  • Hunan University (CN)
  • Hainan University (CN)
Corresponding author
Wu, Yi
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2025-01-27
Volume
15
Pages
1455015-1455015
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1455015
PMC
PMC11808137
OpenAlex
W4406850244
Cited by
104
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 77 · 2025: 27
FWCI
108.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Design Education and Practice
Keywords
generative AI, creative cognition, design students, self-efficacy, anxiety, innovative thinking, serial mediation, design education

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