ReviewBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Why Do Students Feel Satisfied Yet Uneasy with Artificial Intelligence: A Process-Oriented Conceptual Review of How Cognitive and Moral Dissonance Account for the Satisfaction-Dissonance Paradox in Higher Education.
Review in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rapid integration of artificial intelligence in higher education positively affects student satisfaction, engagement, and learning outcomes. However, students frequently report ethical unease, guilt, and concerns about dependency. The current literature offers a limited explanation for their coexistence, as both have been treated as parallel or independent outcomes. Hence, this review extends and integrates existing theories by reconceptualising cognitive and moral dissonance as a central psychological process that explains how student satisfaction with AI-mediated learning is produced, negotiated, and sustained. Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, we adopted a two-layer explanatory review design, synthesising 40 Scopus-indexed studies (Layer 1 = 15 studies; Layer 2 = 25 studies) from 2016 to 2025. Layer 1 studies explicitly define dissonance-related explanatory mechanisms that influence satisfaction and continued AI use across contexts such as dissertation writing, programming education, and problem-based learning. Layer 2 encompasses satisfaction-based studies that report ethical or affective concerns in parallel without theorising their interaction. The findings suggest a recurring satisfaction-dissonance paradox, in which students often experience genuine or conditional satisfaction from performance gains while simultaneously managing their psychological discomfort through one or more regulation mechanisms. Further, persistent and escalated dissonance leads to withdrawal or full or partial adaptive behaviour. We propose these dynamics as a testable Dual-Process Satisfaction-Dissonance Framework (DPSDF), which includes five dissonance triggers, five regulation strategies, three feedback loops, and four behavioural outcomes. Further, five domain experts' suggestions have been taken to provide specific practical implications. This framework extends understanding of AI-mediated learning and provides foundations for future theory and policy development in higher education.
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.