Enabling and Inhibitory Pathways of University Students' Willingness to Disclose AI Use: A Cognition-Affect-Conation Perspective

arXiv cs.AI / 4/25/2026

📰 NewsIdeas & Deep AnalysisModels & Research

共有:

Key Points

The study examines how university students decide whether to disclose AI-assisted work using a Cognition–Affect–Conation (CAC) framework and mixed-methods research.
Psychological safety was found to significantly increase disclosure willingness, driven by perceived fairness, teacher support, and organizational support.
Evaluation apprehension was found to reduce both disclosure intention and psychological safety, and it was amplified by perceived stigma, uncertainty, and privacy concerns.
Qualitative interviews show that clear institutional guidance and supportive teaching practices promote openness, while unclear policies and fear of negative evaluation lead students to disclose cautiously or strategically.

Abstract

The increasing integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in higher education has raised important questions regarding students' transparency in reporting AI-assisted work. This study investigates the psychological mechanisms underlying university students' willingness to disclose AI use by applying the Cognition--Affect--Conation (CAC) framework. A sequential explanatory mixed-methods design was employed. In the quantitative phase, survey data were collected from 546 university students and analysed using structural equation modelling to examine the relationships among cognitive perceptions, affective responses, and disclosure intention. In the qualitative phase, semi-structured interviews with 22 students were conducted to further interpret the quantitative findings. The results indicate that psychological safety significantly increases students' willingness to disclose AI use and is positively shaped by perceived fairness, perceived teacher support, and perceived organisational support. Conversely, evaluation apprehension reduces disclosure intention and psychological safety, and is strengthened by perceived stigma, perceived uncertainty, and privacy concern. Qualitative findings further reveal that institutional clarity and supportive instructional practices encourage openness, whereas policy ambiguity and fear of negative evaluation often lead students to adopt cautious or strategic disclosure practices. Overall, the study highlights the dual role of enabling and inhibitory psychological mechanisms in shaping AI-use disclosure and underscores the importance of supportive institutional environments and clear guidance for promoting responsible AI transparency in higher education.