ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Understanding university students' AI ethical decision-making in academic contexts: a SOR - social cognitive perspective.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The integration of generative artificial intelligence into higher education has reshaped students' academic practices and blurred normative boundaries around academic integrity. While prior research has focused mainly on attitudes and usage intentions, limited attention has been paid to students' AI ethical decision-making in academic scenarios and its psychological mechanisms. This study examined the associations among AI ethics guidance, academic ethics course experience, moral cognition, cognitive complexity, and AI ethical decision-making. It tested whether moral cognition mediated the relationships between normative inputs and AI ethical decision-making and whether cognitive complexity strengthened these relationships. The study integrated the Stimulus-Organism-Response framework with Social Cognitive Theory and combined net-effect, configurational, and importance-performance analyses. Methods: Survey data were collected from 1,106 undergraduates at Chinese universities. Partial least squares structural equation modeling was used to test direct, mediating, and moderating relationships, complemented by fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis to identify configurational pathways to high AI ethical decision-making. Importance-performance matrix analysis identified intervention priorities. Results: AI ethics guidance ( Discussion: The findings advance academic integrity research by shifting attention from attitudes to scenario-based decision quality and clarifying the internalization mechanism through moral cognition. Practically, they highlight the complementary roles of technological prompts and academic ethics course experience in fostering students' AI ethical decision-making.
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.