Randomized trial examines how AI self-efficacy and technostress affect critical thinking in university students, suggesting confidence is key.
The rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into higher education has renewed concern that technology-related strain may erode students’ higher-order thinking. Drawing on a social–cognitive framework, this study tested whether AI self-efficacy and technostress predict critical thinking in 340 Peruvian undergraduates, who completed three validated scales (Yoon’s Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory; the brief General Self-Efficacy Scale for AI, GSE-6AI; and the RED-Technostress scale). Data were modeled with PLS-SEM, with significance from 5000 bootstrap resamples and an out-of-sample predictive assessment (PLSpredict, CVPAT). AI self-efficacy was a robust positive predictor of critical thinking (β = 0.42, p < 0.001), whereas technostress had no direct effect (β = −0.06, p = 0.50); AI self-efficacy was associated with higher technostress (β = 0.24, p < 0.001), but that path did not carry over to critical thinking (no mediation). A hypothesized moderation (AI self-efficacy mattering more at higher technostress) was not confirmed: it reached significance under the two-stage method but not under a stricter bootstrap, and the hypothesis was therefore not supported. The model explained a modest share of variance in critical thinking (R2 = 0.17) and was invariant across public and private universities. These findings reposition technostress as, at most, a distal correlate and identify confident, literate engagement with AI, rather than the absence of strain, as the more promising lever for cultivating critical thinking.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yauri et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: