Abbas et al.

Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2024) 21:10 International Journal of Educational
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00444-7
Technology in Higher Education

RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access

Is it harmful or helpful? Examining

the causes and consequences of generative AI
usage among university students
Muhammad Abbas1*, Farooq Ahmed Jam2,3 and Tariq Iqbal Khan4

*Correspondence:
pirthegreat@gmail.com Abstract
1
FAST School of Management, While the discussion on generative artificial intelligence, such as ChatGPT, is making
National University of Computer waves in academia and the popular press, there is a need for more insight into the use
and Emerging Sciences, of ChatGPT among students and the potential harmful or beneficial consequences
Islamabad, Pakistan
2
Global Illuminators, Kuala associated with its usage. Using samples from two studies, the current research
Lumpur, Malaysia examined the causes and consequences of ChatGPT usage among university students.
3
Department of Science & Study 1 developed and validated an eight-item scale to measure ChatGPT usage
Technology Studies, Faculty
of Science, University of Malaya, by conducting a survey among university students (N = 165). Study 2 used a three-
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia wave time-lagged design to collect data from university students (N = 494) to further
4
Institute of Management validate the scale and test the study’s hypotheses. Study 2 also examined the effects
Sciences, The University
of Haripur, Haripur, Pakistan of academic workload, academic time pressure, sensitivity to rewards, and sensitivity
to quality on ChatGPT usage. Study 2 further examined the effects of ChatGPT usage
on students’ levels of procrastination, memory loss, and academic performance. Study
1 provided evidence for the validity and reliability of the ChatGPT usage scale. Further-
more, study 2 revealed that when students faced higher academic workload and time
pressure, they were more likely to use ChatGPT. In contrast, students who were
sensitive to rewards were less likely to use ChatGPT. Not surprisingly, use of ChatGPT
was likely to develop tendencies for procrastination and memory loss and dampen
the students’ academic performance. Finally, academic workload, time pressure,
and sensitivity to rewards had indirect effects on students’ outcomes through ChatGPT
usage.
Keywords: Workload, Time pressure, Sensitivity to quality, Sensitivity to rewards,
ChatGPT usage, Procrastination, Memory loss, Academic performance

Introduction
"The ChatGPT software is raising important questions for educators and researchers
all around the world, with regards to fraud in general, and particularly plagiarism," a
spokesperson for Sciences Po told Reuters (Reuters, 2023).
“I don’t think it [ChatGPT] has anything to do with education, except undermining it.
ChatGPT is basically high-tech plagiarism…and a way of avoiding learning.” said Noam
Chomsky, a public intellectual known for his work in modern linguistics, in an interview
(EduKitchen & January21, 2023).

© The Author(s) 2024. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits
use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original
author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third
party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the mate-
rial. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or
exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Abbas et al. Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2024) 21:10 Page 2 of 22

In recent years, the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) has significantly influ-
enced various aspects of higher education. Among these AI technologies, ChatGPT
(OpenAI, 2022) has gained widespread popularity in academic settings for a variety of
uses such as generation of codes or text, assistance in research, and the completion of
assignments, essays and academic projects (Bahroun et al., 2023; Stojanov, 2023; Str-
zelecki, 2023). ChatGPT enables students to generate coherent and contextually appro-
priate responses to their queries, providing them with an effective resource for their
academic work. However, the extensive use of ChatGPT brings a number of challenges
for higher education (Bahroun et al., 2023; Chan, 2023; Chaudhry et al., 2023; Dalalah &
Dalalah, 2023).
Scholars have speculated that the use of ChatGPT may bring many harmful conse-
quences for students (Chan, 2023; Dalalah & Dalalah, 2023; Dwivedi et al., 2023; Lee,
2023). It has the potential to harmfully affect students’ learning and success (Korn &
Kelly, 2023; Novak, 2023) and erode their academic integrity (Chaudhry et al., 2023).
Such lack of academic integrity can damage the credibility of higher education institu-
tions (Macfarlane et al., 2014) and harm the achievement motivation of students (Krou
et al., 2021). However, despite the increasing usage of ChatGPT in higher education, very
rare empirical research has focused on the factors that drive its usage among university
students (Strzelecki, 2023). In fact, majority of the prior studies consist of theoretical
discussions, commentaries, interviews, reviews, or editorials on the use of ChatGPT
in academia (e.g., Cooper, 2023; Cotton et al., 2023; Dwivedi et al., 2023; King, 2023;
Peters et al., 2023). For example, we have a very limited understanding of the key driv-
ers behind the use of ChatGPT by university students and how ChatGPT usage affects
their personal and academic outcomes. Similarly, despite many speculations, very lim-
ited research has empirically examined the beneficial or harmful effects of generative
AI usage on students’ academic and personal outcomes (e.g., Yilmaz & Yilmaz, 2023a,
2023b). Even these studies provide contradictory evidence on whether ChatGPT is help-
ful or harmful for students.
Therefore, an understanding of the dynamics and the role of generative AI, such as
ChatGPT, in higher education is still in its nascent stages (Carless et al., 2023; Strzelecki,
2023; Yilmaz & Yilmaz, 2023a). Such an understanding of the motives behind Chat-
GPT usage and its potentially harmful or beneficial consequences is critical for educa-
tors, policymakers, and students, as it can help the development of effective strategies to
integrate generative AI technologies into the learning process and control their misuse
in higher education (Meyer et al., 2023). For the same reasons, scholars have called for
future research to delve deeper into the positives and negatives of ChatGPT in higher
education (Bahroun et al., 2023; Chaudhry et al., 2023; Dalalah & Dalalah, 2023).
Taken together, the current study has several objectives that aim to bridge these gaps
and significantly contribute to the body of knowledge and practice in higher education.
First, responding to the call of prior research on the development of ChatGPT usage
scale (Paul et al., 2023), we develop and validate a scale for ChatGPT usage in study 1.
Next, we conduct another study (i.e., study 2) to investigate several theoretically rel-
evant factors—such as academic workload, time pressure, sensitivity to rewards, and
sensitivity to quality—which may potentially affect the use of ChatGPT by university
students. In addition, concerns have been raised regarding the impact of ChatGPT on
Abbas et al. Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2024) 21:10 Page 3 of 22

students’ academic performance and creativity. For example, scholars consider the use
of ChatGPT as “deeply harmful to a social understanding of knowledge and learning”
(Peters et al., 2023, p. 142) and having the potential to “kill creativity and critical think-
ing” (Dwivedi et al., 2023, p. 25). However, empirical evidence regarding the harmful or
beneficial consequences of ChatGPT usage remains largely unavailable. Therefore, we
investigate the effects of ChatGPT usage on students’ procrastination, memory reten-
tion/loss, and academic performance (i.e., CGPA). Together, this research aims to pro-
vide valuable insights for educators, policymakers, and students in understanding the
factors that encourage the use of ChatGPT by students and the beneficial or deleterious
effects of such usage in higher education.

Literature and hypotheses

Academic workload and use of ChatGPT
Academic workload refers to the number of academic tasks, responsibilities, and activ-
ities that students are required to complete during a specific period, usually a semes-
ter. The workload encompasses the volume and complexity of assignments or projects
(Bowyer, 2012). Students are put under high stress when they have an excessive amount
of academic work to complete (Yang et al., 2021).
Studies indicate that overburdened students are more likely to rely on unethical
means to complete their academic tasks instead of relying on their own abilities and
learning. For example, Devlin and Gray (2007) found that students engage in unethi-
cal academic practices such as cheating and plagiarism when they are exposed to heavy
workload. Similarly, Koudela-Hamila et al. (2022) found a significantly positive relation-
ship between academic workload and academic stress among university students. In
another study, Hasebrook et al. (2023) found that individuals were more likely to accept
and adopt technology when their workload was high. Consistently, when students are
faced with high workload, they look for ways to cope with this demanding situation. As a
result, they use easy means or shortcuts (e.g., ChatGPT) to cope with such stressful situ-
ations (i.e., heavy workload). Consequently, we suggest:

Hypothesis 1 Workload will be positively related to the use of ChatGPT.

Time pressure and use of ChatGPT

Time pressure is described as the perception that an impending deadline is becom-
ing closer and closer (Carnevale & Lawler, 1986). Under time pressure, individuals use
simple heuristics in order to complete tasks (Rieskamp & Hoffrage, 2008). Under high
time pressure, students may consider the available time as insufficient to accomplish
the assignments, and therefore they may rely on ChatGPT to complete these tasks. Pre-
liminary research indicates that time pressure to complete academic tasks encourages
plagiarism among students (Koh et al., 2011). Devlin and Gray (2007) also found that
students engage in cheating and plagiarism under time pressure to complete their aca-
demic tasks. Similarly, those students who are exposed to time pressure adopt a surface
learning approach (Guo, 2011), which indicates that the students may use shortcuts such
as ChatGPT to complete their tasks within deadlines. Therefore, we argue that under
Abbas et al. Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2024) 21:10 Page 4 of 22

high levels of time pressure, students are more likely to use ChatGPT for their academic
activities. Consequently, we suggest:

Hypothesis 2 Time pressure will be positively related to the use of ChatGPT.

Sensitivity to rewards and use of ChatGPT

Sensitivity to rewards is the degree to which a student is worried or concerned about his
or her academic rewards such as grades. As far as the relationship between sensitivity to
rewards and ChatGPT usage is concerned, prior research does not help to make a clear
prediction. For example, on the one hand, it is possible that students with higher sensi-
tivity to rewards may be more inclined to use ChatGPT, as they perceive it as a means
to obtain better academic results. They may see ChatGPT as a resource to enhance their
academic performance and get good grades. Evidence indicates that individuals, who are
highly sensitive to rewards or impulsive, have a tendency to engage in risky behaviors
such as texting on their cell phones while driving (Hayashi et al., 2015; Pearson et al.,
2013). This indicates that students, who are reward sensitive, may engage in risky behav-
iors such as the misuse of ChatGPT for academic activities or plagiarism.
On the other hand, it is also possible that students who are highly worried about their
rewards may not use ChatGPT for the fear of losing their grades. Since the use of Chat-
GPT for academic activities is usually considered as an unethical mean (Dalalah et al.,
2023; Dwivedi et al., 2023), highly reward sensitive individuals may be more cautious
about using technologies that their teachers perceive as ethically questionable or could
jeopardize their academic integrity and grades. Consequently, we suggest competing
hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3a Sensitivity to rewards will be positively related to the use of ChatGPT.

Hypothesis 3b Sensitivity to rewards will be negatively related to the use of ChatGPT.

Sensitivity to quality and use of ChatGPT

Sensitivity to quality or quality consciousness refers to the extent to which students are
perceptive when evaluating the standard and excellence of their educational activities.
This sensitivity involves the students’ consciousness of the quality of learning they are
having (Olugbara et al., 2020) or the quality of contents (e.g., assignments or projects)
they are working on. We suggest that students, who are sensitive to the quality of the
contents, are more likely to use different tools to enhance the quality of their academic
work.
ChatGPT can be used by quality-conscious students for numerous reasons. Students,
who are sensitive to quality, may want to ensure excellence, accuracy, and reliability in
their work—and they may recognize the potential benefits of using ChatGPT to meet
their expectations for high-quality academic work (Haensch et al., 2023; Yan, 2023). Sim-
ilarly, students high in sensitivity to quality often pay great attention to grammar, style,
and language precision. ChatGPT can assists in refining their written work by providing
suggestions for sentence structure, word choice, and grammar (Abbas, 2023; Dwivedi
et al., 2023). Therefore, students with a strong sensitivity to quality are more likely to
Abbas et al. Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2024) 21:10 Page 5 of 22

use ChatGPT in order to enhance the quality of their academic work (e.g., assignments,
projects, essays, or presentations), as compared to those who are not sensitive to quality.
Consequently, we suggest:

Hypothesis 4 Sensitivity to quality will be positively related to the use of ChatGPT.

Use of ChatGPT and procrastination

Procrastination occurs when people “voluntarily delay an intended course of action
despite expecting to be worse off for the delay” (Steel, 2007, p. 66). Some individuals
are predisposed to put off doing things until later (i.e., chronic procrastinators), whereas
others only do so in certain circumstances (Rozental et al., 2022). Academic procrastina-
tion, which refers to the practice of routinely putting off academic responsibilities to the
point that the delays become damaging to performance, is an important issue both for
students and educational institutions (Svartdal & Løkke, 2022).
Studies suggest that procrastination occurs very frequently in students (Bäulke & Dre-
sel, 2023) and it may be influenced by a variety of environmental and personal factors
(Liu et al., 2023; Steel, 2007). We argue that the use of generative AI may influence the
tendencies for procrastination among students. Using short-cuts, which may help stu-
dents to complete the academic tasks without putting much efforts, will eventually make
the students habitual. As a result, these short cuts—such as the use of ChatGPT—may
cause procrastination among students. For example, a student who is addicted to Chat-
GPT usage may believe that he or she can complete an academic assignment or a project
within less time and without putting much efforts. Such feelings of having control over
the tasks are likely to encourage the students to delay those tasks till the last moment,
thereby resulting in procrastination. More recent evidence also indicates that ChatGPT
usage may cause laziness among students (Yilmaz & Yilmaz, 2023a). Consequently, we
suggest:

Hypothesis 5 Use of ChatGPT will be positively related to procrastination.

Use of ChatGPT and memory loss

Memory loss refers to a condition or a state in which an individual experiences difficulty
in recalling information or events from the past (Mateos et al., 2016). Scholars indicate
that cognitive, emotional, or physical conditions affect memory functioning among indi-
viduals (Fortier-Brochu et al., 2012; Schweizer et al., 2018). We argue that excessive use
of ChatGPT may result in memory loss among students. Continuous use of ChatGPT
for academic tasks may develop laziness among the students and weaken their cognitive
skills (Yilmaz & Yilmaz, 2023a) leading to a memory loss.
Over time, overreliance on generative AI tools for academic tasks, instead of critical
thinking and mental exertion, may damage memory retention, cognitive functioning,
and critical thinking abilities (Bahrini et al., 2023; Dwivedi et al., 2023). Active learn-
ing, which involves active cognitive engagement with the content, is crucial for memory
consolidation and retention (Cowan et al., 2021). Since ChatGPT can quickly respond to
any questions asked by a user (Chan et al., 2023), students who excessively use ChatGPT
Abbas et al. Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2024) 21:10 Page 6 of 22

may reduce their cognitive efforts to complete their academic tasks, resulting in poor
memory.
Related evidence demonstrates that daily mental training helps to improve cognitive
functions among individuals (Uchida & Kawashima, 2008). Similarly, fast simple numer-
ical calculation training (FSNC) was associated with improvements in performance
on simple processing speed, improved executive functioning, and better performance
in complex arithmetic tasks (Takeuchi et al., 2016). Moreover, Nouchi et al. (2013)
found that brain training games helped to boost working memory and processing speed
in young adults. Therefore, the extensive use of ChatGPT may yield an absence of such
cognitive trainings, thereby leading to memory loss among students. Consequently, we
suggest:

Hypothesis 6 Use of ChatGPT will be positively related to memory loss.

Use of ChatGPT and academic performance

Academic performance refers to the level of accomplishment that a student demon-
strates in his or her educational pursuits. The objective measure of a student’s academic
performance is indicated by cumulative grade point average (CGPA), which is a grading
system used in educational institutions to measure a student’s overall academic perfor-
mance in a specific period, usually a semester.
If students effectively leverage the insights gained from ChatGPT to improve
their understanding of a subject, it may positively influence their academic performance.
However, if they rely solely on ChatGPT without putting in the necessary efforts, critical
thinking, and independent study, it may harm their academic performance. Over-reli-
ance on external sources, including generative AI tools, without personal engagement
and active learning, can hinder the development of essential skills and the depth of
knowledge required for academic success (Chan et al., 2023). Therefore, students who
habitually use ChatGPT may end up demonstrating poor academic performance. Conse-
quently, we suggest:

Hypothesis 7 Use of ChatGPT will be negatively related to academic performance.

The mediating role of ChatGPT usage

We further suggest that ChatGPT usage will mediate the relationships of workload,
time pressure, sensitivity to quality, and sensitivity to rewards with students’ outcomes.
Specifically, students who experience heavy workload and time pressure to complete
their academic tasks are likely to engage in ChatGPT usage to cope with these stress-
ful situations. In turn, reliance on ChatGPT may lead to delays in the accomplishment
of the tasks (i.e., procrastination) because the students may believe that they can com-
plete the tasks at any time without putting much efforts. Similarly, the excessively reli-
ance on ChatGPT, as a substitute for their critical thinking and problem-solving skills,
may hinder their ability to develop a deeper understanding of the subject matter, which
can harmfully impact their academic performance (Abbas, 2023). Further, the high use
of ChatGPT for academic tasks could potentially lead to reduced mental engagement,
Abbas et al. Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2024) 21:10 Page 7 of 22

thereby exacerbating the risk of memory impairment (Bahrini et al., 2023; Dwivedi et al.,
2023).
Moreover, ChatGPT usage will mediate the relationships of rewards sensitivity and
quality sensitivity with procrastination, memory loss, and academic performance. The
fear of losing marks (i.e., reward sensitivity) and the consciousness towards quality of
academic work (i.e., sensitivity to quality), may influence the use of ChatGPT. In turn,
the excessive (or less) use of ChatGPT may affect students’ procrastination, memory
loss, and academic performance. Together, we suggest:

Hypothesis 8 Use of ChatGPT will mediate the relationships of workload with procras-
tination, memory loss, and academic performance.

Hypothesis 9 Use of ChatGPT will mediate the relationships of time pressure with pro-
crastination, memory loss, and academic performance.

Hypothesis 10 Use of ChatGPT will mediate the relationships of sensitivity to rewards

with procrastination, memory loss, and academic performance.

Hypothesis 11 Use of ChatGPT will mediate the relationships of sensitivity to quality

with procrastination, memory loss, and academic performance.

Methods (Study 1)
ChatGPT usage scale development procedures
Item generation: We used scale development procedures proposed in prior research
(Hinkin, 1998). We first defined ChatGPT usage as the extent to which students use
ChatGPT for various academic purposes including completion of assignments, projects,
or preparation of exams. Based on this definition, initially 12 items were developed for
further scrutiny.
Initial item reduction: Following the guidelines of Hinkin (1998), we performed an
item-sorting process during the early stages of scale development. In order to establish
content validity of the ChatGPT usage scale, we conducted interviews from five experts
of the relevant field. The experts were asked to evaluate each item intended to measure
ChatGPT usage. The experts agreed that 10 of the 12 items measured certain aspects of
the academic use of ChatGPT by the students. Based on the content validity, these 10
items were finalized for further analyses.

Sample and data collection

The 10-item scale for the use of ChatGPT was distributed among 165 students from
numerous university across Pakistan. The responses were taken on a 6-point Likert
type scale with anchors ranging from 1 = never to 6 = always. A cover letter clearly
communicated that the participation was voluntary, and the student could decline
participation at any point during data collection. The respondents were also ensured
complete confidentiality of their responses. The sample consisted of 53.3% males. The
average age was 23.25 year (S.D = 4.22). Around 85% universities were from public
sector and the remaining belonged to private sector. Similarly, around 59% students
Abbas et al. Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2024) 21:10 Page 8 of 22

were enrolled in business studies, 6% were enrolled in computer sciences, 9% were

enrolled in general education, 5% were enrolled in psychology, 4% were enrolled in
English language, 4% were enrolled in public administration, 9% were enrolled in
sociology, and 4% were enrolled in mathematics. Furthermore, around 74% were
enrolled in bachelor’s programs, 22% were enrolled in master’s programs, and 4%
were enrolled in doctoral programs.

Exploratory factor analysis

Next, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to determine the fac-
tor structure of the proposed scale (Field, 2018; Hinkin, 1998). Principal component
analysis (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994) was used for extraction and the varimax rota-
tion with Kaiser normalization was used as a rotation method. To ascertain the num-
ber of variables, the parameters of eigenvalue > 1 and the total percentage of variance
explained > 50% were used. The results revealed that the Bartlett’s test of sphericity was
significant (p < 0.001) and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) sampling adequacy was
0.878 (p < 0.001), which was greater than the threshold value of 0.50, thereby considered
acceptable for sample adequacy (Field, 2018). Further, factor loadings and communali-
ties above 0.5 are usually considered acceptable (Field, 2018). As shown in Table 1, the
results revealed that item 4 and item 9 had low factor loadings and communalities.
We then dropped these two items and conducted another EFA on the remaining
eight items. As presented in Table 2, all 8 items exceeded the threshold criteria. Also,
a one-factor structure accounted for 62.65% of the cumulative variance with all item
loadings above 0.50. Therefore, the final scale to measure use of ChatGPT consisted
of eight items. The Cronbach’s alpha (CA) for the 8-item scale was α = 0.914 and the
composite reliability (CR) was 0.928. These scores of CA and CR exceeded the thresh-
old value of 0.7, thereby indicating construct reliability (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).
Finally, as shown in Table 2, the average variance extracted (AVE) score was 0.618,
which was above the threshold value of 0.5, thus indicating convergent validity (Hair
et al., 2019). Together, these results established good reliability and validity of the
8-item scale to measure ChatGPT usage.

Table 1 Use of ChatGPT scale: factor loadings, communalities, and total variance extracted (Study 1)
Items Factor loading Communalities Total
variance
extracted

I use ChatGPT for my course assignments 0.82 0.67 54.721

I use ChatGPT for my course projects 0.78 0.60
I use ChatGPT for my academic activities 0.82 0.67
I can’t think of studies without ChatGPT 0.58 0.34
I rely on ChatGPT for my studies 0.79 0.63
I use ChatGPT to learn course-related concepts 0.76 0.57
I am addicted to ChatGPT when it comes to studies 0.79 0.63
I use ChatGPT to prepare for my tests or quizzes 0.76 0.58
Use of ChatGPT is common nowadays 0.44 0.19
ChatGPT is part of my campus life 0.77 0.59
Abbas et al. Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2024) 21:10 Page 9 of 22

Table 2 Revised use of ChatGPT scale: factor loadings, communalities, and total variance extracted
(Study 1)
Items Factor loading Communalities Total CA CR AVE
variance
extracted

I use ChatGPT for my course assign- 0.837 0.701 62.650 0.914 0.928 0.618
ments
I use ChatGPT for my academic activi- 0.824 0.680
ties
I use ChatGPT for my course projects 0.798 0.637
I am addicted to ChatGPT when it 0.792 0.627
comes to studies
I rely on ChatGPT for my studies 0.780 0.608
I use ChatGPT to prepare for my tests 0.775 0.601
or quizzes
I use ChatGPT to learn course-related 0.769 0.592
concepts
ChatGPT is part of my campus life 0.752 0.566
CA Cronbach’s Alpha, CR composite reliability, AVE average variance extracted

Fig. 1 Theoretical framework of the study

Methods (Study 2)
Sample and data collection procedures
The objective of study 2 was to further validate the 8-item ChatGPT scale developed
in study 1. In addition, we tested the study’s hypotheses in study 2. Figure 1 presents
the theoretical framework of study 2. The study used a time-lagged design, whereby the
data were collected using online forms in three phases with a gap of 1–2 weeks after
each phase. The data were collected from individuals who were currently enrolled in a
university.
We used procedural and methodological remedies recommended by scholars (see,
Podsakoff et al., 2012) to address issues related to common method bias. First, we clearly
communicated to our participants that their involvement was voluntary, and they
retained the right to decline participation at any point during data collection. In addition,
we ensured complete confidentiality of their responses, emphasizing that there were no
right or wrong responses to the questions. Finally, we used a three-wave time-lagged
design to keep a temporal separation between predictors and outcomes (Podsakoff et al.,
2012). In each phase, the students were asked to assigned a code initially generated by
them so that the survey forms for each respondent could be matched. Moreover, ethi-
cal clearance and approvals from the ethics committees of the authors’ institutions were
Abbas et al. Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2024) 21:10 Page 10 of 22

also obtained. Since English is the official language in all educational institutions, the
survey forms were distributed in English. Past research has also used English language
for survey research (e.g., Abbas & Bashir, 2020; Fatima et al., 2023; Malik et al., 2023).
In the first phase, around 900 participants were contacted to fill the survey on work-
load, time pressure, sensitivity to quality, sensitivity to rewards, and demographics. At
the end of the first phase, a total of 840 surveys were received. In the second phase,
after 1–2 weeks, the same respondents were contacted to fill the survey on the use of
ChatGPT. Around 675 responses were received at the end of the second phase. Finally,
another two weeks later, these 675 respondents were contacted again to collect data on
memory loss, procrastination, and academic performance. At the end of the third phase,
around 540 survey forms were returned. After removing surveys which contained miss-
ing data, the final sample size consisted of 494 complete responses which were then used
for further analyses.
Of these 494 respondents, 50.8% were males and the average age of the respondents
was 22.16 (S.D. = 3.47) years. Similarly, 88% of the respondents belonged to public sec-
tor and 12% belonged to private sector universities. Around 65% students were enrolled
in business studies, 3% were enrolled in computer sciences, 12% were enrolled in gen-
eral education, 1% were studying English language, 9% were studying public administra-
tion, and 10% were studying sociology. Finally, around 74% were enrolled in bachelor’s
programs, 24% were enrolled in master’s programs, and 2% were enrolled in doctoral
programs.

Measures
All variables, except for the use of ChatGPT, were measured on a 5-point Likert type
scale with anchors ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Use of Chat-
GPT was measured on a 6-point Likert type scale with anchors ranging from 1 = never
to 6 = always. The complete items for all measures are presented in Table 3.
Academic workload: A 4-item scale by Peterson et al. (1995) was adapted to measure
academic workload. A sample item included, ‘I feel overburdened due to my studies.’
Academic time pressure: A 4-item scale by Dapkus (1985) was adapted to measure time
pressure. A sample item was, ‘I don’t have enough time to prepare for my class projects.’
Sensitivity to rewards: We measured sensitivity to rewards with a 2-item scale. The
items included, ‘I am worried about my CGPA’ and ‘I am concerned about my semester
grades.’
Sensitivity to quality: Sensitivity to quality was measured with a 2-item scale. The
items were, ‘I am sensitive about the quality of my course assignments’ and ‘I am con-
cerned about the quality of my course projects.’
Use of ChatGPT: We used the 8-item scale developed in study 1 to measure the use of
ChatGPT. A sample item was, ‘I use ChatGPT for my academic activities.’
Procrastination: A 4-item scale developed by Choi and Moran (2009) was used to
measure procrastination. A sample item included, ‘I’m often running late when getting
things done.’
Memory loss: We used a 3-item scale to measure memory loss. A sample item was,
‘Nowadays, I can’t retain too much in my mind.’
Abbas et al. Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2024) 21:10 Page 11 of 22

Table 3 Factor loading, reliability, and validity (Study 2)

Items Loadings CA CR AVE

Workload (Peterson et al., 1995) 0.845 0.895 0.680

My academic workload is too heavy 0.861
I feel overloaded by the work my studies require 0.838
I feel overburdened due to my studies 0.810
The teacher(s) give too much work to do 0.788
Time pressure (Dapkus, 1985) 0.740 0.833 0.562
I don’t have enough time to prepare for my class projects 0.829
I don’t have enough time to complete study-related tasks with appropriate 0.810
care
I find it difficult to submit my assignments and projects within the deadlines 0.804
I am often in hurry when it comes to meeting academic deadlines 0.511
Sensitivity to rewards 0.881 0.944 0.894
I am worried about my CGPA 0.947
I am concerned about my semester grades 0.944
Sensitivity to quality 0.717 0.871 0.773
I am concerned about the quality of my course projects 0.930
I am sensitive about the quality of my course assignments 0.825
Use of ChatGPT 0.903 0.922 0.596
I use ChatGPT for my academic activities 0.812
I use ChatGPT to prepare for my tests or quizzes 0.795
I use ChatGPT for my course projects 0.788
I use ChatGPT to learn course-related concepts 0.778
I rely on ChatGPT for my studies 0.771
I use ChatGPT for my course assignments 0.762
I am addicted to ChatGPT when it comes to studies 0.735
ChatGPT is part of my campus life 0.732
Procrastination (Choi & Moran, 2009) 0.756 0.845 0.577
I often fail to accomplish goals that I set for myself 0.795
I’m often running late when getting things done 0.792
I often start things at the last minute and find it difficult to complete them on 0.739
time
I have difficulty finishing activities once I start them 0.710
Memory loss 0.757 0.860 0.672
Nowadays, I often forget things to do 0.862
Nowadays, I can’t retain too much in my mind 0.829
Nowadays, I feel that I am losing my memory 0.765
The CA, CR, and AVE for academic performance was not calculated because it was measured using a single item/score (i.e.,
CGPA)
CA Cronbach’s Alpha, CR composite reliability, AVE average variance extracted

Academic performance: We used an objective measure of academic performance

to avoid self-report or social desirability bias. Each student reported his or her latest
CGPA. The CGPA score ranges between 1 = lowest to 4 = highest. Since CGPA for
each respondent was obtained as a single score, there was no need to calculate its
reliability or validity.
Abbas et al. Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2024) 21:10 Page 12 of 22

Analyses and results (Study 2)

We used partial least squares (PLS) method to validate the measurements and test the
hypotheses, as PLS is a second-generation structural equation modeling (SEM) tech-
nique that estimates relationships among latent variables by taking measurement errors
into account and it is considered as a superior technique (Hair et al., 2017). The pro-
gram utilizes bootstrapping approaches which entails the process of resampling from
the dataset to provide standard errors and confidence intervals, yielding a more precise
assessment of the model’s stability (Hair et al., 2017, 2019). Further, partial least squares
(PLS) are often favored in situations with limited sample numbers and non-normal dis-
tributions (Hair et al., 2019).

Measurement model
The measurement model is presented in Fig. 2. In the measurement model, first, we ran
all the constructs together and examined the commonly used indicators of standardized
factor loading, CA, CR, and AVE. The measurement model exhibited adequate levels of
validity and reliability. As shown in Table 3, the standardized factor loadings for each
item of each measure were above the threshold level of 0.70 (Hair et al., 2019). Similarly,
CA and CR scores for each measure were above 0.70 and the AVE also surpassed 0.5. All
scores exceeded the cut-off criteria, thereby establishing reliability and convergent valid-
ity of each construct (Hair et al., 2019).
Furthermore, discriminant validity ensures that each latent construct is distinct from
other constructs. As per Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) criteria, discriminant validity is
established if the squared root of the AVE for each construct is larger than the correla-
tion of that construct with other constructs. As shown in Table 4, the squared root of
the AVE for each construct (the value along the diagonal presented in bold) exceeded

Fig. 2 Measurement indicators outer-loadings and AVE (Study 2)

 Abbas et al. Int J Educ Technol High Educ

Table 4 Discriminant validity (Study 2)

(2024) 21:10

Fornell and Larcker criteria Heterotrait-monotrait ratio

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Workload 0.825
2. Time pressure 0.560 0.750 0.695
3. Sensitivity to rewards 0.174 0.051 0.945 0.208 0.072
4. Sensitivity to quality 0.266 0.104 0.489 0.879 0.346 0.161 0.611
5. Use of ChatGPT 0.216 0.236 − 0.051 0.038 0.772 0.233 0.266 0.088 0.086
6. Procrastination 0.276 0.366 0.062 0.050 0.307 0.760 0.336 0.493 0.075 0.089 0.361
7. Memory loss 0.278 0.246 0.111 0.053 0.273 0.551 0.820 0.345 0.334 0.139 0.084 0.322 0.724
Page 13 of 22
Abbas et al. Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2024) 21:10 Page 14 of 22

the correlation of that construct with other constructs, thereby establishing discriminant
validity of all constructs. Similarly, Henseler et al. (2015) consider Heterotrait-Monotrait
(HTMT) ratio as a better tool to establish discriminate validity, as a large number of
researchers have also used it (e.g., Hosta & Zabkar, 2021). HTMT values below 0.85 are
considered good to establish discriminant validity (Henseler et al., 2015). As shown in
Table 4, all of the HTMT values were below the threshold, thereby establishing discrimi-
nant validity among the study’s constructs.
Furthermore, in order to test multicollinearity, we calculated variance inflation factor
(VIF), which should be less than 5 to rule out the possibility of multicollinearity among
the constructs (Hair et al., 2019). In all analyses, VIF scores were less than 5, indicating
that multicollinearity was not a problem.

Structural model
We then tested the study’s hypotheses for direct and indirect effect using bootstrapping
procedures with 5,000 samples in SmartPLS (Hair et al., 2017). The structural model is
presented in Fig. 3.
As presented in Table 5, the findings revealed that workload was positively related to
the use of ChatGPT (β = 0.133, t = 2.622, p < 0.01). Those students who experienced high
levels of academic workload were more likely to engage in ChatGPT usage. This result
supported hypothesis 1. Similarly, time pressure also had a significantly positive rela-
tionship with the use of ChatGPT (β = 0.163, t = 3.226, p < 0.001), thereby supporting
hypothesis 2. In other words, students who experienced high time pressure to accom-
plish their academic tasks also reported higher use of ChatGPT. Further, the effect of
sensitivity to rewards on the use of ChatGPT was negative and marginally significant
(β = − 0.102, t = 1.710, p < 0.10), thereby suggesting that students who are more sensitive

Fig. 3 Structural model (Study 2)

Abbas et al. Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2024) 21:10 Page 15 of 22

Table 5 Direct effects (Study 2)

Hypothesis Path Coefficient T Statistics P-value Status

H1 Workload -> Use of ChatGPT 0.133 2.622 0.009 Supported

H2 Time Pressure -> Use of ChatGPT 0.163 3.226 0.001 Supported
H3a, H3b Sensitivity to Rewards -> Use of ChatGPT − 0.102 1.710 0.087 H3b supported
H4 Sensitivity to Quality -> Use of ChatGPT 0.033 0.590 0.555 Not supported
H5 Use of ChatGPT -> Procrastination 0.309 6.984 0.000 Supported
H6 Use of ChatGPT -> Memory Loss 0.274 6.452 0.000 Supported
H7 Use of ChatGPT -> Academic Performance − 0.104 2.390 0.017 Supported

to rewards are less likely to use ChatGPT. These results supported hypothesis 3b instead
of hypothesis 3a. Finally, we found that sensitivity to quality was not significantly related
to the use of ChatGPT (β = 0.033, t = 0.590, n.s). Thus, hypothesis 4 was not supported.
Consistent with hypothesis 5, the findings further revealed that the use of ChatGPT
was positively related to procrastination (β = 0.309, t = 6.984, p < 0.001). Those stu-
dents who frequently used ChatGPT were more likely to engage in procrastination
than those who rarely used ChatGPT. Use of ChatGPT was also found to be positively
related to memory loss (β = 0.274, t = 6.452, p < 0.001), thus hypothesis 6 was also
supported. Students who frequently used ChatGPT also reported memory impair-
ment. Furthermore, use of ChatGPT was found to have a negative effect on academic
performance (i.e., CGPA) of the students (β = − 0.104, t = 2.390, p < 0.05). Students
who frequently used ChatGPT for their academic tasks had poor CGPAs. These find-
ings rendered support for hypothesis 7.
Table 6 presents the results for all indirect effects. As shown in Table 6, workload
had a positive indirect effect on procrastination (indirect effect = 0.041, t = 2.384,
p < 0.05) and memory loss (indirect effect = 0.036, t = 2.333, p < 0.05) through the
use of ChatGPT. Students who experienced higher workload were more likely to use
ChatGPT which in turn developed the habits of procrastination among them and
caused memory loss. Similarly, workload had a negative indirect effect on academic
performance (indirect effect = − 0.014, t = 1.657, p < 0.10) through the use of Chat-
GPT. In other words, students who experienced higher workload were more likely to
use ChatGPT. As a result, the extensive use of ChatGPT dampened their academic
performance. These results supported hypothesis 8.
In addition, time pressure had a positive indirect effect on both procrastination (indi-
rect effect = 0.050, t = 2.607, p < 0.01) and memory loss (indirect effect = 0.045, t = 2.574,
p < 0.01), through an increased utilization of ChatGPT. Students facing higher time con-
straints were more inclined to use ChatGPT, ultimately fostering procrastination habits
and experiencing memory issues. Similarly, time pressure had a negative indirect effect
on academic performance (indirect effect = − 0.017, t = 1.680, p < 0.10), mediated by
the increased use of ChatGPT. Thus, students experiencing greater time pressure were
more likely to rely heavily on ChatGPT, consequently leading to a dampening of their
academic performance. Together, these results supported hypothesis 9.
Furthermore, sensitivity to rewards had a negative indirect relationship with pro-
crastination (indirect effect = − 0.032, 1.676, p < 0.10) and memory loss (indirect
Abbas et al. Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2024) 21:10 Page 16 of 22

Table 6 Indirect effects via use of ChatGPT (Study 2)

Hypothesis Path Coefficient T Statistics P-value Status

H8 Workload -> Use of ChatGPT -> Procrastina- 0.041 2.384 0.017 Supported
tion
H8 Workload -> Use of ChatGPT -> Memory Loss 0.036 2.333 0.020 Supported
H8 Workload -> Use of ChatGPT -> Academic − 0.014 1.657 0.098 Supported
Performance
H9 Time Pressure -> Use of ChatGPT -> Procras- 0.050 2.607 0.009 Supported
tination
H9 Time Pressure -> Use of ChatGPT -> Memory 0.045 2.574 0.010 Supported
Loss
H9 Time Pressure -> Use of ChatGPT -> Aca- − 0.017 1.680 0.093 Supported
demic Performance
H10 Sensitivity to Rewards -> Use of ChatGPT − 0.032 1.676 0.094 Supported
-> Procrastination
H10 Sensitivity to Rewards -> Use of ChatGPT − 0.028 1.668 0.095 Supported
-> Memory Loss
H10 Sensitivity to Rewards -> Use of ChatGPT 0.011 1.380 0.168 Not supported
-> Academic Performance
H11 Sensitivity to Quality -> Use of ChatGPT 0.010 0.582 0.561 Not supported
-> Procrastination
H11 Sensitivity to Quality -> Use of ChatGPT 0.009 0.582 0.561 Not supported
-> Memory Loss
H11 Sensitivity to Quality -> Use of ChatGPT − 0.003 0.535 0.593 Not supported
-> Academic Performance

effect = − 0.028, t = 1.668, p < 0.10) through the use of ChatGPT. Students who were
sensitive to rewards were less likely to use ChatGPT and thus experience lower levels
of procrastination and memory loss. However, the findings revealed that the indirect
effect of sensitivity to rewards on academic performance was insignificant (indirect
effect = 0.011, t = 1.380, p = 0.168). These findings supported hypothesis 10 for pro-
crastination and memory loss only. Finally, the indirect effects of sensitivity to qual-
ity on procrastination (indirect effect = 0.010, t = 0.582, n.s), memory loss (indirect
effect = 0.009, t = 0.582, n.s), and academic performance (indirect effect = − 0.003,
t = 0.535, n.s) through the use of ChatGPT were all insignificant. Therefore, hypoth-
esis 11 was not supported.

Overall discussion
Major findings
The recent emergence of generative AI has brought about significant implications for
various societal institutions, including higher education institutions. As a result, there
has been a notable upswing in discussions among scholars and academicians regarding
the transformative potential of generative AI, particularly ChatGPT, in higher education
and the risks associated with it (Dalalah & Dalalah, 2023; Meyer et al., 2023; Peters et al.,
2023; Yilmaz & Yilmaz, 2023a). Specifically, the dynamics of ChatGPT are still unknown
in the context that no study, to date, has yet provided any empirical evidence on why
students’ use ChatGPT. The literature is also silent on the potential consequences, harm-
ful or beneficial, of ChatGPT usage (Dalalah & Dalalah, 2023; Paul et al., 2023) despite a
ban in many institutions across the globe. Responding to these gaps in the literature, the
current study proposed workload, time pressure, sensitivity to rewards, and sensitivity
Abbas et al. Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2024) 21:10 Page 17 of 22

to quality as the potential determinants of the use of ChatGPT. In addition, the study
examined the effects of ChatGPT usage on students’ procrastination, memory loss, and
academic performance.
The findings suggested that those students who experienced high levels of academic
workload and time pressure to accomplish their tasks reported higher use of ChatGPT.
Regarding the competing hypotheses on the effects of sensitivity to rewards on ChatGPT
usage, the findings suggested that the students who were more sensitive to rewards were
less likely to use ChatGPT. This indicates that rewards sensitive students might avoid the
use ChatGPT for the fear of getting a poor grade if caught. Surprisingly, we found that
sensitivity to quality was not significantly related to the use of ChatGPT. It appears that
quality consciousness might not determine the use of ChatGPT because some quality
conscious students might consider the tasks completed by personal effort as having high
quality. In contrast, other quality conscious students might consider ChatGPT written
work as having a better quality.
Furthermore, our findings suggested that excessive use of ChatGPT can have harmful
effects on students’ personal and academic outcomes. Specifically, those students who
frequently used ChatGPT were more likely to engage in procrastination than those who
rarely used ChatGPT. Similarly, students who frequently used ChatGPT also reported
memory loss. In the same vein, students who frequently used ChatGPT for their aca-
demic tasks had a poor CGPA. The mediating effects indicated that academic workload
and time pressure were likely to promote procrastination and memory impairment
among students through the use of ChatGPT. Also, these stressors dampened students’
academic performance through the excessive use of ChatGPT. Consistently, the findings
suggested that higher reward sensitivity discouraged the students to use ChatGPT for
their academic tasks. The less use of ChatGPT, in turn, helped the students experience
lower levels of procrastination and memory loss.

Theoretical implications
The current study responds to the calls for the development of a novel scale to measure
the use of ChatGPT and an empirical investigation into the harmful or beneficial effects
of ChatGPT in higher education for a better understand of the dynamics of generative
AI tools. Study 1 uses a sample of university students to develop and validate the use of
ChatGPT scale. We believe that the availability of the new scale to measure the use of
ChatGPT may help further advancement in this field. Moreover, study 2 validates the
scale using another sample of university students from a variety of disciplines. Study 2
also examines the potential antecedents and consequences of ChatGPT usage. This is
the first attempt to empirically examine why students might engage in ChatGPT usage.
We provide evidence on the role of academic workload, time pressure, sensitivity to
rewards, and sensitivity to quality in encouraging the students to use ChatGPT for aca-
demic activities.
The study also contributes to the prior literature by examining the potential delete-
rious consequences of ChatGPT usage. Specifically, the study provides evidence that
the excessive use of ChatGPT can develop procrastination, cause memory loss, and
dampen academic performance of the students. The study is a starting point that paws
Abbas et al. Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2024) 21:10 Page 18 of 22

path for future research on the beneficial or deleterious effects of generative AI usage in
academia.

Practical implications
The study provides important implications for higher education institutions, policy
makers, instructors, and students. Our findings suggest that both heavy workload and
time pressure are influential factors driving students to use ChatGPT for their academic
tasks. Therefore, higher education institutions should emphasize the importance of
efficient time management and workload distribution while assigning academic tasks
and deadlines. While ChatGPT may aid in managing heavy academic workloads under
time constraints, students must be kept aware of the negative consequences of exces-
sive ChatGPT usage. They may be encouraged to use it as a complementary resource
for learning instead of a tool for completing academic tasks without investing cognitive
efforts. In the same vein, encouraging students to keep a balance between technological
assistance and personal effort can foster a holistic approach to learning.
Similarly, policy makers and educators should design curricula and teaching strategies
that engage students’ natural curiosity and passion for learning. While ChatGPT’s ease
of use might be alluring, fostering an environment where students derive satisfaction
from mastering challenging concepts independently can mitigate overreliance on gen-
erative AI tools. Also, recognizing and rewarding students for their genuine intellectual
achievements can create a sense of accomplishment that may supersede the allure of
quick AI-based solutions. As also noted by Chaudhry et al. (2023), in order to discourage
misuse of ChatGPT by the students, the instructors may revisit their performance evalu-
ation methods and design novel assessment criteria that may require the students to use
their own creative skills and critical thinking abilities to complete assignments and pro-
jects instead of using generative AI tools.
Moreover, given the preliminary evidence that extensive use of ChatGPT has a nega-
tive effect on a students’ academic performance and memory, educators should encour-
age students to actively engage in critical thinking and problem-solving by assigning
activities, assignments, or projects that cannot be completed by ChatGPT. This can
mitigate the adverse effects of ChatGPT on their learning journey and mental capabili-
ties. Furthermore, educators can create awareness among students about the potential
pitfalls of excessive ChatGPT usage. Finally, educators and policy makers can develop
interventions that target both the underlying causes (e.g., workload, time pressure,
sensitivity to rewards) and the consequences (e.g., procrastination, memory loss, and
academic performance). These interventions could involve personalized guidance, skill-
building workshops, and awareness campaigns to empower students to leverage genera-
tive AI tools effectively while preserving their personal learning.

Limitations and future research directions

Like other study, this study also has some limitations. First, although we used a time-
lagged design, as compared to cross-sectional designs used by prior research (e.g.,
Strzelecki, 2023), we could not completely rule out the possibility of reciprocal rela-
tionships. For example, it is also possible that ChatGPT usage may also help lessen
the subsequent perceptions of workload. Future research may examine these causal
Abbas et al. Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2024) 21:10 Page 19 of 22

mechanisms using a longitudinal design. Second, in order to provide a deeper under-

standing of generative AI usage, future studies may examine how personality factors,
such as trust propensity and the Big Five personality traits, relate to ChatGPT usage.
Also, an understanding of how these traits shape perceptions of ChatGPT’s reliability,
trustworthiness, and effectiveness may shed light on the dynamics of user-machine
interactions in the context of generative AI.
Moreover, our finding regarding the insignificant effect of quality consciousness on
ChatGPT usage warrants further investigation. While some quality conscious stu-
dents might consider personal effort as a condition to produce quality work, other
quality conscious individuals might believe that ChatGPT can help achieve quality
in academic tasks. Perhaps, some contextual moderators (e.g., propensity to trust
generative AI) may play their role in determining the effects of quality conscious-
ness on ChatGPT usage. In the same vein, fear of punishment may also discourage
the use of ChatGPT for plagiarism. As noted by an anonymous reviewer, future stud-
ies may probe the benefits associated with the use of generative AI and also compare
the dynamics of ChatGPT usage across numerous fields of knowledge (e.g., computer
sciences, social sciences) or across gender to examine any differential effects. Finally,
future research may probe the effects of ChatGPT usage on students’ learning and
health outcomes. By investigating how ChatGPT usage impacts cognitive skills, men-
tal health, and learning experiences among students, researchers can contribute to
the growing discourse on the role of generative AI in higher education.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.

Author contributions
MA contributed to the conceptualization of the idea, theoretical framework, methodology, analyses, and the writeup. FAJ
and TIK contributed to the data collection, methodology, analyses, and the write-up. All authors read and approved the
final manuscript.

Funding
There was no funding received from any institution for this study.

Availability of data and materials

The data associated with this research is available upon a reasonable request.

Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The research was explicitly approved by the ethical review committee of the authors’ university. All procedures per-
formed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution.

Informed consent
Participants were informed about the study’s procedures, risks, benefits, and other aspects before their participation.
Only those who gave their consent were allowed to participate in the research.

Competing interests
The authors declare that they do not have any competing interests.

Received: 14 September 2023 Accepted: 22 January 2024

References
Abbas, M. (2023). Uses and misuses of ChatGPT by academic community: an overview and guidelines. SSRN. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​2139/​ssrn.​44025​10
Abbas et al. Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2024) 21:10 Page 20 of 22

Abbas, M., & Bashir, F. (2020). Having a green identity: does pro-environmental self-identity mediate the effects of moral
identity on ethical consumption and pro-environmental behavior? Studia Psychologica, 41(3), 612–643. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1080/​02109​395.​2020.​17962​71
Bahrini, A., Khamoshifar, M., Abbasimehr, H., Riggs, R. J., Esmaeili, M., Majdabadkohne, R. M., & Pasehvar, M. (2023). Chat-
GPT: Applications, opportunities, and threats. In 2023 Systems and Information Engineering Design Symposium (SIEDS)
(pp. 274–279).
Bahroun, Z., Anane, C., Ahmed, V., & Zacca, A. (2023). Transforming Education: A comprehensive review of generative
artificial intelligence in educational settings through bibliometric and content analysis. Sustainability, 15(17), 12983.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su151​712983
Bäulke, L., & Dresel, M. (2023). Higher-education course characteristics relate to academic procrastination: A multivariate
two-level analysis. Educational Psychology, 43(4), 263–283. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​01443​410.​2023.​22198​73
Bowyer, K. (2012). A model of student workload. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 34(3), 239–258.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​13600​80X.​2012.​678729
Carless, D., Jung, J., & Li, Y. (2023). Feedback as socialization in doctoral education: Towards the enactment of authentic
feedback. Studies in Higher Education. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​03075​079.​2023.​22428​88
Carnevale, P. J. D., & Lawler, E. J. (1986). Time pressure and the development of integrative agreements in bilateral nego-
tiations. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 30(4), 636–659. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​00220​02786​03000​4003
Chan, C. K. Y. (2023). A comprehensive AI policy education framework for university teaching and learning. International
Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 1–25. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s41239-​023-​00408-3
Chan, M. M. K., Wong, I. S. F., Yau, S. Y., & Lam, V. S. F. (2023). Critical reflection on using ChatGPT in student learning: Ben-
efits or potential risks? Nurse Educator. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1097/​NNE.​00000​00000​001476
Chaudhry, I. S., Sarwary, S. A. M., El Refae, G. A., & Chabchoub, H. (2023). Time to revisit existing student’s performance
evaluation approach in higher education sector in a new era of ChatGPT—a case study. Cogent Education, 10(1),
2210461. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​23311​86X.​2023.​22104​61
Choi, J. N., & Moran, S. V. (2009). Why not procrastinate? Development and validation of a new active procrastination
scale. The Journal of Social Psychology, 149(2), 195–212. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3200/​SOCP.​149.2.​195-​212
Cooper, G. (2023). Examining science education in ChatGPT: An exploratory study of generative artificial intelligence.
Journal of Science Education and Technology. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10956-​023-​10039-y
Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2023). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of
ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​14703​297.​2023.​21901​48
Cowan, E. T., Schapiro, A. C., Dunsmoor, J. E., & Murty, V. P. (2021). Memory consolidation as an adaptive process. Psycho-
nomic Bulletin & Review, 28(6), 1796–1810. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3758/​s13423-​021-​01978-x
Dalalah, D., & Dalalah, O. M. A. (2023). The false positives and false negatives of generative AI detection tools in education
and academic research: The case of ChatGPT. The International Journal of Management Education, 21(2), 100822.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijme.​2023.​100822
Dapkus, M. A. (1985). A thematic analysis of the experience of time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(2),
408–419. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0022-​3514.​49.2.​408
Devlin, M., & Gray, K. (2007). In their own words: A qualitative study of the reasons Australian university students plagia-
rize. Higher Education Research & Development, 26(2), 181–198. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​07294​36070​13108​05
Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah, A. M., Koohang, A., Raghavan, V., Ahuja,
M., Albanna, H., & Wright, R. (2023). “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities,
challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of
Information Management, 71, 102642. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijinf​omgt.​2023.​102642
EduKitchen. (2023). Chomsky on ChatGPT, Education, Russia, and the unvaccinated [Video]. YouTube. https://​www.​youtu​be.​
com/​watch?v=​Igxzc​OugvE​I&t=​1182s
Fatima, S., Abbas, M., & Hassan, M. M. (2023). Servant leadership, ideology-based culture and job outcomes: A multi-level
investigation among hospitality workers. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 109, 103408. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​ijhm.​2022.​103408
Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (5th ed.). SAGE.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Alge-
bra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​00222​43781​01800​313
Fortier-Brochu, É., Beaulieu-Bonneau, S., Ivers, H., & Morin, C. M. (2012). Insomnia and daytime cognitive performance: A
meta-analysis. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 16(1), 83–94. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​smrv.​2011.​03.​008
Guo, X. (2011). Understanding student plagiarism: An empirical study in accounting education. Accounting Education,
20(1), 17–37. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​09639​284.​2010.​534577
Haensch, A., Ball, S., Herklotz, M., & Kreuter, F. (2023). Seeing ChatGPT through students’ eyes: An analysis of TikTok data.
ArXiv Preprint ArXiv: 2303.05349. https://​doi.​org/​10.​48550/​arXiv.​2303.​05349
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling
(PLS-SEM). Publications, SAGE.
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European
Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​EBR-​11-​2018-​0203
Hasebrook, J. P., Michalak, L., Kohnen, D., Metelmann, B., Metelmann, C., Brinkrolf, P., et al. (2023). Digital transition in rural
emergency medicine: Impact of job satisfaction and workload on communication and technology acceptance.
PLoS ONE, 18(1), e0280956. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1371/​journ​al.​pone.​02809​56
Hayashi, Y., Russo, C. T., & Wirth, O. (2015). Texting while driving as impulsive choice: A behavioral economic analysis.
Accident Analysis & Prevention, 83, 182–189. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​aap.​2015.​07.​025
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based
structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s11747-​014-​0403-8
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational
Research Methods, 1(1), 104–121. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10944​28198​00100​106
Abbas et al. Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2024) 21:10 Page 21 of 22

Hosta, M., & Zabkar, V. (2021). Antecedents of environmentally and socially responsible sustainable consumer behavior.
Journal of Business Ethics, 171(2), 273–293. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10551-​019-​04416-0
King, M. R. (2023). A conversation on artificial intelligence, chatbots, and plagiarism in higher education. Cellular and
Molecular Bioengineering, 16(1), 1–2. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12195-​022-​00754-8
Koh, H. P., Scully, G., & Woodliff, D. R. (2011). The impact of cumulative pressure on accounting students’ propensity to
commit plagiarism: An experimental approach. Accounting & Finance, 51(4), 985–1005. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​
1467-​629X.​2010.​00381.x
Korn, J., & Kelly, S. (January). New York City public schools ban access to AI tool that could help students cheat. Retrieved from
https://​editi​on.​cnn.​com/​2023/​01/​05/​tech/​chatg​pt-​nyc-​school-​ban/​index.​html
Koudela-Hamila, S., Santangelo, P. S., Ebner-Priemer, U. W., & Schlotz, W. (2022). Under which circumstances does
academic workload lead to stress? Journal of Psychophysiology, 36(3), 188–197. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1027/​0269-​8803/​
a0002​93
Krou, M. R., Fong, C. J., & Hoff, M. A. (2021). Achievement motivation and academic dishonesty: A meta-analytic investiga-
tion. Educational Psychology Review, 33, 427–458. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10648-​020-​09557-7
Lee, H. (2023). The rise of ChatGPT: Exploring its potential in medical education. Anatomical Sciences Education. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1002/​ase.​2270
Liu, L., Zhang, T., & Xie, X. (2023). Negative life events and procrastination among adolescents: The roles of negative emo-
tions and rumination, as well as the potential gender differences. Behavioral Sciences, 13(2), 176. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
3390/​bs130​20176
Macfarlane, B., Zhang, J., & Pun, A. (2014). Academic integrity: A review of the literature. Studies in Higher Education, 39(2),
339–358. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​03075​079.​2012.​709495
Malik, M., Abbas, M., & Imam, H. (2023). Knowledge-oriented leadership and workers’ performance: Do individual knowl-
edge management engagement and empowerment matter? International Journal of Manpower. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1108/​IJM-​07-​2022-​0302
Mateos, P. M., Valentin, A., González-Tablas, M. D. M., Espadas, V., Vera, J. L., & Jorge, I. G. (2016). Effects of a memory training
program in older people with severe memory loss. Educational Gerontology, 42(11), 740–748.
Meyer, J. G., Urbanowicz, R. J., Martin, P. C., O’Connor, K., Li, R., Peng, P. C., Bright, T. J., Tatonetti, N., Won, K. J., Gonzalez-Her-
nandez, G., & Moore, J. H. (2023). ChatGPT and large language models in academia: Opportunities and challenges.
BioData Mining, 16(1), 20. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s13040-​023-​00339-9
Nouchi, R., Taki, Y., Takeuchi, H., Hashizume, H., Nozawa, T., Kambara, T., Sekiguchi, A., Miyauchi, C. M., Kotozaki, Y., Nouchi,
H., & Kawashima, R. (2013). Brain training game boosts executive functions, working memory and processing speed
in the young adults: A randomized controlled trial. PLoS ONE, 8(2), e55518. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1371/​journ​al.​pone.​
00555​18
Novak, D. (2023). Why US schools are blocking ChatGPT? 17 January 2023. Retrieved from https://​learn​ingen​glish.​voane​ws.​
com/a/​why-​us-​schoo​ls-​are-​block​ing-​chatg​pt/​69143​20.​html
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Olugbara, C. T., Imenda, S. N., Olugbara, O. O., & Khuzwayo, H. B. (2020). Moderating effect of innovation consciousness
and quality consciousness on intention-behaviour relationship in E-learning integration. Education and Information
Technologies, 25, 329–350. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10639-​019-​09960-w
Paul, J., Ueno, A., & Dennis, C. (2023). ChatGPT and consumers: Benefits, pitfalls and future research agenda. International
Journal of Consumer Studies, 47(4), 1213–1225. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​ijcs.​12928
Pearson, M. R., Murphy, E. M., & Doane, A. N. (2013). Impulsivity-like traits and risky driving behaviors among college
students. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 53, 142–148. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​aap.​2013.​01.​009
Peters, M. A., Jackson, L., Papastephanou, M., Jandrić, P., Lazaroiu, G., Evers, C. W., Cope, B., Kalantzis, M., Araya, D., Tesar, M.,
Mika, C., & Fuller, S. (2023). AI and the future of humanity: ChatGPT-4, philosophy and education–Critical responses.
Educational Philosophy and Theory. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​00131​857.​2023.​22134​37
Peterson, M. F., Smith, P. B., Akande, A., Ayestaran, S., Bochner, S., Callan, V., Cho, N. G., Jesuino, J. C., D’Amorim, M., Francois,
P.-H., Hofmann, K., Koopman, P. L., Leung, K., Lim, T. K., Mortazavi, J., Radford, M., Ropo, A., Savage, G., Setiad, B., Sinha,
T. N., Sorenson, R., & Viedge, C. (1995). Role conflict, ambiguity, and overload: A 21-nation study. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 38(2), 429–452. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5465/​256687
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and
recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1146/​annur​
ev-​psych-​120710-​100452
Reuters. (2023). Top French university bans use of ChatGPT to prevent plagiarism. Retrieved from https://​www.​reute​rs.​com/​
techn​ology/​top-​french-​unive​rsity-​bans-​use-​chatg​pt-​preve​nt-​plagi​arism-​2023-​01-​27/
Rieskamp, J., & Hoffrage, U. (2008). Inferences under time pressure: How opportunity costs affect strategy selection. Acta
Psychologica, 127(2), 258–276. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​actpsy.​2007.​05.​004
Rozental, A., Forsström, D., Hussoon, A., & Klingsieck, K. B. (2022). Procrastination among university students: Differentiat-
ing severe cases in need of support from less severe cases. Frontiers in Psychology. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3389/​fpsyg.​
2022.​783570
Schweizer, S., Kievit, R. A., Emery, T., & Henson, R. N. (2018). Symptoms of depression in a large healthy population cohort
are related to subjective memory complaints and memory performance in negative contexts. Psychological Medi-
cine, 48(1), 104–114. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1017/​S0033​29171​70015​19
Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory
failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 65–94. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0033-​2909.​133.1.​65
Stojanov, A. (2023). Learning with ChatGPT 3.5 as a more knowledgeable other: An autoethnographic study. International
Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 35. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s41239-​023-​00404-7
Strzelecki, A. (2023). To use or not to use ChatGPT in higher education? A study of students’ acceptance and use of tech-
nology. Interactive Learning Environments. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​10494​820.​2023.​22098​81
Svartdal, F., & Løkke, J. A. (2022). The ABC of academic procrastination: Functional analysis of a detrimental habit. Frontiers
in Psychology, 13, 1019261. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3389/​fpsyg.​2022.​10192​61
Abbas et al. Int J Educ Technol High Educ (2024) 21:10 Page 22 of 22

Takeuchi, H., Nagase, T., Taki, Y., Sassa, Y., Hashizume, H., Nouchi, R., & Kawashima, R. (2016). Effects of fast simple numerical
calculation training on neural systems. Neural Plasticity, 2016, 940634. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1155/​2016/​59406​34
Uchida, S., & Kawashima, R. (2008). Reading and solving arithmetic problems improves cognitive functions of normal
aged people: A randomized controlled study. Age, 30, 21–29. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11357-​007-​9044-x
Yan, D. (2023). Impact of ChatGPT on learners in a L2 writing practicum: An exploratory investigation. Education and
Information Technologies. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10639-​023-​11742-4
Yang, C., Chen, A., & Chen, Y. (2021). College students’ stress and health in the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of academic
workload, separation from school, and fears of contagion. PLoS ONE, 16(2), e0246676. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1371/​journ​
al.​pone.​02466​76
Yilmaz, R., & Yilmaz, F. G. K. (2023a). Augmented intelligence in programming learning: Examining student views on the
use of ChatGPT for programming learning. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 1(2), 100005. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​chbah.​2023.​100005
Yilmaz, R., & Yilmaz, F. G. K. (2023b). The effect of generative artificial intelligence (AI)-based tool use on students’ compu-
tational thinking skills, programming self-efficacy and motivation. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 4,
100147. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​caeai.​2023.​100147

Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.