ArticleScientific reports2026
Explaining reported generative AI engagement in higher education: an extended TAM with ethical compatibility and reliance-based trust.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The rapid integration of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools into higher education has intensified conversations regarding usefulness, ethical alignment, and responsible engagement. Unlike traditional technology acceptance studies that focus on initial use, this study examines AI use intensity among active university users. Building on an extended Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), the model incorporates AI-Alignment Construct, reliance-based trust in AI outputs, and normative alignment within academic contexts. Data were collected from 637 university students and analyzed using variance-based structural equation modeling. The results indicate that perceived usefulness remains the strongest predictor of AI use. Furthermore, reliance-based trust and AI-Alignment Construct demonstrate statistically significant correlations with engagement, whereas moderation hypotheses were not supported. These findings suggest that ethical and trust-related mechanisms operate primarily at the attitudinal alignment level rather than as boundary conditions within this cross-sectional framework. Moreover, the study contributes by repositioning TAM within a post-adoption engagement context and clarifying the bounded conceptualization of ethics and trust in AI-mediated learning environments. Practical implications emphasize calibrated AI integration, transparent governance, and assessment design aligned with academic integrity. Finally, the findings are associative in nature and should be interpreted within the methodological constraints of self-reported, cross-sectional data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.