ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
AI feedback-seeking and learning engagement in art education: psychological antecedents and reflective mechanisms.
Article in Frontiers in 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.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Generative artificial intelligence provides students with a feedback source that differs from traditional teacher and peer interaction, yet limited research has explained why students actively seek feedback from AI or how such feedback-seeking is associated with subsequent learning engagement. Drawing on transactional stress and coping theory and social cognitive theory, this study examined the psychological antecedents and reflective mechanisms of AI feedback-seeking in art education. Methods: Two complementary studies were conducted. Study 1 utilized survey data from 315 higher education students with recent experience in art learning and generative AI use to investigate whether a fear of negative evaluation was associated with AI feedback-seeking through interpersonal help-seeking avoidance. Study 2 involved 172 students who completed a standardized AI-supported art-creation task. It examined whether AI feedback-seeking was associated with task behavioral engagement through reflective learning and whether openness strengthened this indirect relationship. The proposed relationships were tested using partial least squares structural equation modeling. Results: In Study 1, fear of negative evaluation was positively associated with interpersonal help-seeking avoidance, which in turn was associated with greater AI feedback-seeking. The indirect association between fear of negative evaluation and AI feedback-seeking through interpersonal help-seeking avoidance was significant, whereas the direct association was not. In Study 2, AI feedback-seeking was positively associated with reflective learning, which was further associated with task behavioral engagement. Reflective learning significantly mediated the association between AI feedback-seeking and task behavioral engagement. Openness strengthened both the association between AI feedback-seeking and reflective learning and the corresponding indirect association with task behavioral engagement. Discussion: The findings indicate that avoiding interpersonal help does not necessarily reflect withdrawal from feedback. Under evaluation concerns, students may instead select AI as a feedback source involving less interpersonal exposure. However, seeking AI feedback is not uniformly associated with stronger learning engagement; its relevance depends on whether students reflect on the information obtained and remain receptive to alternative perspectives. The study positions AI feedback-seeking as both a coping-oriented form of feedback-source selection and a learner-initiated resource for reflective engagement in art 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.