ArticlePloS one2026
Motivational and psychological variables related to unethical uses of artificial intelligence across multiple life domains (academics and online interactions).
Article in PloS one, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Past studies about unethical uses of generative artificial intelligence (AI) have focused within a specific life domain (e.g., how AI is used for cheating in academics). An online survey was conducted to investigate how AI users utilized AI across multiple domains, how unethical behaviors in one domain related to behaviors in others, and which motivational and psychological variables corresponded with those uses. The goal was to help create a foundational understanding of how people use AI more broadly, including what the largest motivations for unethical use are and if unethical use had psychological consequences for the user. Creating this foundation can help develop successful interventions for unethical AI use. Findings supported that performing potentially unethical behaviors in one area of life (e.g., academics) were positively related to unethical behaviors in another area of life (e.g., social media interactions). Using AI unethically was positively related to knowing that the use was unethical. Unethical AI use was not related to intrinsic or extrinsic motivation, but was positively related to results pressure (prioritizing outcomes), external pressure (unethical use is normative and unlikely to be penalized), and time pressure (saving time by completing a task more quickly). Unethical AI use was also positively related to a desire for social media popularity and narcissism. Unethical uses of AI were not related to self-esteem, self-efficacy, or loneliness, but were positively related to satisfaction with life, making social comparisons, internalizing the perspective of others about their own body, prioritizing physical appearance over other attributes, and comparing one's physical appearance with others. This study provided evidence that despite ethical misuse, generative AI is being used across multiple domains of life and is largely associated with positive consequences for the user. Unethical AI use was applied across multiple areas of life and was associated with variables related to elevating status, achieving good outcomes, behaving within broader cultural norms, and saving time. Future applications could explore if a more wholistic approach that targets motivations is more effective than a domain-specific approach when attempting to create interventions to curb unethical AI use.
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.