PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 21, 2026British Educational Research Journal3 citations

Drivers and pathways of AI academic mentor acceptance: An SEM ‐ fsQCA study integrating cognitive appraisal theory and the AIDUA model

View Full Paper
LQLiu QiLZLili ZhaoCQCui Qi

Key Points

  • The aim is to explore alternative motivations for university students accepting AI as academic mentors.
  • Mixed-method approach using structural equation modelling (SEM) and fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA).
  • Analysis of cognitive appraisal theory and AIDUA model in determining motivational factors.
  • Identification of students' acceptance paths through cognitive, affective, and competency factors.
  • Students' acceptance of AI mentors follows a three-stage cognitive appraisal process.
  • Key drivers include perceived humanness, novelty value, and performance expectancy.
  • Three configurations of acceptance: efficiency-prioritized, social interaction, and exploration-driven types.

Abstract

Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping learning in higher education, particularly within the global shift towards sustainable education and human‐centric visions. However, as traditional human mentoring faces challenges such as limited availability and inconsistent support, the potential of AI to function as an academic mentor remains underexplored. This study aims to investigate the alternative motivations for university students to accept AI as an academic mentor. Based on cognitive appraisal theory (CAT) and the artificially intelligent device use acceptance (AIDUA) model, we employed a mixed‐method approach combining structural equation modelling (SEM) and fuzzy‐set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to analyse the influencing paths and antecedent configurations. SEM results reveal that students' AI acceptance decisions exhibit a distinct three‐stage process: in the cognitive appraisal stage, perceived humanness and novelty value are the primary drivers; in the affective appraisal stage, performance expectancy is a stronger trigger for emotion than effort expectancy; and in the decision‐making stage, AI literacy emerges as the key determinant of final acceptance. fsQCA further identifies three typical configurations: an efficiency‐prioritized type driven by instrumental rationality, a social interaction type centred on emotional experience, and an exploration‐driven type characterized by the pursuit of innovation. These findings confirm that students' acceptance of AI academic mentors is not solely dependent on technical performance but is shaped by the complex interplay of cognitive, affective, and competency factors. The study provides important implications for higher education institutions seeking to integrate AI tools effectively and ethically.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Qi et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69be37dd6e48c4981c677de0https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.70147
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1AI-Driven Transformation in Higher Education: A Quantitative Analysis Using Sem2026
  2. 2Model of Acceptance of Artificial Intelligence Devices in Higher Education2026
  3. 3The mechanisms of AI acceptance drivers on learning outcomes in higher education2026
  4. 4Model of AI acceptance in higher education: arguing teaching staff and students perspectives2024 · 18 citations
  5. 5Investigating Factors Affecting AI Adoption in Higher Education Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM)2025 · 4 citations