Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42351269›Full record

ArticleBMC psychology2026

Exploring EFL learners' behavioral intention toward AI-based conversational tools through the lens of UTAUT and Self-Determination Theory.

Li Pan, Qihuan Chen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Li PanShandong Xiehe University, Jinan, China. panli@sdxiehe.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-4127-6626
Qihuan ChenWuhan Donghu University, Wuhan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

AI-based conversational tools have attracted increasing attention in EFL speaking practice because they offer real-time interaction and flexible opportunities for oral communication, yet learners' intention to use these tools remains insufficiently understood. Drawing primarily on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology, with Self-Determination Theory as a complementary perspective, this study examines factors associated with EFL learners' behavioral intention to use AI-based conversational tools. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 568 Chinese undergraduate EFL majors, most of whom were early-stage, low-frequency users of AI-based conversational tools. Structural equation modeling showed that behavioral intention was mainly associated with performance expectancy, hedonic motivation, and effort expectancy, while social influence and facilitating conditions showed weaker associations. The analysis identified significant indirect associations involving autonomy or competence and intrinsic motivation, whereas the corresponding association involving relatedness was not significant. Taken together, these findings suggest that learners' intention to use AI-based conversational tools is related both to how they evaluate the technology and to the motivational quality of the speaking practice it supports. In practice, teachers should organize purposeful speaking activities that offer meaningful learner choice and make progress visible, while developers should ensure that AI-based conversational tools are useful, enjoyable, and easy to use.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceCommunicationIntentionLearningPersonal AutonomyCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMotivationYoung AdultAI-based Conversational ToolsBehavioral IntentionEFLSDTUTAUT

Identifiers

PMID42351269
PMCPMC13555966

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.