ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2026
How Generative AI Use Styles Shape Academic Engagement: The Roles of Academic Impostor Syndrome and AI Policy Clarity.
Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Telling Students to Evaluate Does Not Make It Happen: Task Stage, Offloading Tendency, and Error Detection in AI-Assisted Student Writing.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The Impact of Unscaffolded GenAI Use on Pre-Service Teachers' AI Readiness, Self-Regulated Learning, Critical Thinking, and Instructional Design Performance: A Quasi-Experimental Study.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Family-school autonomy support for children's responsible use of generative artificial intelligence: a self-determination theory synthesis and developmental research agenda.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Generative AI (GenAI) is increasingly embedded in higher education, yet evidence on its implications for students' academic engagement and psychological experiences remains mixed. One possible reason is that prior research has often focused on how much students use AI and their general confidence in task completion, while paying less attention to how they use AI and how they attribute AI-supported achievement. To address this gap, this study distinguishes reflective from thoughtless AI use, examines academic impostor syndrome as a self-evaluative mechanism linking AI use styles to academic engagement, and tests perceived AI policy clarity as a contextual moderator. A two-wave survey of 478 Chinese university students showed that reflective AI use was negatively associated with academic impostor syndrome, whereas thoughtless AI use showed the opposite pattern. Academic impostor syndrome, in turn, was negatively associated with engagement and mediated both pathways. Perceived AI policy clarity amplified these patterns. These findings suggest that GenAI integration should be understood not only as a question of adoption or efficiency, but also of interaction quality and competence attribution. The study highlights the importance of cultivating reflective AI literacy and developing institutional policies that are clear yet psychologically attuned to students' self-evaluative concerns.
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.