Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2505.02863

Understanding University Students' Use of Generative AI: The Roles of Demographics and Personality Traits

Newnew Deng·Edward Jiusi Liu·Xiaoming Zhai
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The use of generative AI (GAI) among university students is rapidly increasing, yet empirical research on students' GAI use and the factors influencing it remains limited. To address this gap, we surveyed 363 undergraduate and graduate students in the United States, examining their GAI usage and how it relates to demographic variables and personality traits based on the Big Five model (i.e., extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability, and intellect/imagination). Our findings reveal: (a) Students in higher academic years are more inclined to use GAI and prefer it over traditional resources. (b) Non-native English speakers use and adopt GAI more readily than native speakers. (c) Compared to White, Asian students report higher GAI usage, perceive greater academic benefits, and express a stronger preference for it. Similarly, Black students report a more positive impact of GAI on their academic performance. Personality traits also play a significant role in shaping perceptions and usage of GAI. After controlling demographic factors, we found that personality still significantly predicts GAI use and attitudes: (a) Students with higher conscientiousness use GAI less. (b) Students who are higher in agreeableness perceive a less positive impact of GAI on academic performance and express more ethical concerns about using it for academic work. (c) Students with higher emotional stability report a more positive impact of GAI on learning and fewer concerns about its academic use. (d) Students with higher extraversion show a stronger preference for GAI over traditional resources. (e) Students with higher intellect/imagination tend to prefer traditional resources. These insights highlight the need for universities to provide personalized guidance to ensure students use GAI effectively, ethically, and equitably in their academic pursuits.

Explore related subjects

cs.CYcs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Newnew Deng, Edward Jiusi Liu, Xiaoming Zhai. 2025-05-19. Understanding University Students' Use of Generative AI: The Roles of Demographics and Personality Traits. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.02863

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Frontier Lag: A Bibliometric Audit of Capability Misrepresentation in Academic AI Evaluation

LLM evaluations in applied domains tend to reflect models that were already outclassed at time of publication. We observe a publication elicitation gap: the distance between the AI systems generating the results reported in an academic paper and the AI systems that a current reader of that paper would reasonably assume are being referenced. We systematically sweep OpenAlex from 2022-01-01 to 2026-04-01 (n = 112,303 LLM keyword matches). Then, we identify what models were evaluated (n = 18,574 admissible records). We then rank each evaluated LLM against a frontier LLM based on the Epoch AI Capabilities Index (ECI), an aggregate LLM capability score. At time of evaluation, the median paper is evaluating models that are behind frontier LLMs in capability, with a median gap of +10.85 ECI (H1; n = 12,312). This gap is growing, increasing at a rate of +5.53 ECI per year (H2, nominal 95% CI [+5.03, +5.83]). The sign holds even in the absence of any imputation for evaluation date. In papers (n = 728) where the date of evaluation is explicit and the model in question can be resolved to an ECI score, the median gap for H1 is +5.01 ECI. An explicitly stated evaluation date can be found in only 18.4% of full-text papers. After correction, in 52.5% (95% CI: [48.2, 56.9]) of abstracts in our audit, conclusions are stated at the class level ("AI") rather than the model level. For papers about reasoning models, only 3.2% of abstracts and 21.2% of full-text articles disclose the reasoning mode status of the models used (H4). We propose a solution to this problem that is distributed among authors, editors, and funders. First, reporting from authors. VERSIO-AI v1.2 is a proposed 13-item checklist to cover the configuration surface described herein. Second, enforcement from journal editors and peer reviewers. Third, conditioning grants on disclosure and providing API access.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

The Cross-Section of Stock Returns and AI Exposure

We study 380 trillion tokens of realized AI consumption across more than four hundred LLMs. We build a high-frequency AI factor and show that a long-short strategy based on firms' AI exposure earns significantly positive returns. The average strategy return is larger based on intensive, frontier-oriented AI consumption but smaller based on casual or open-weight usage. Internationally, the return spread is significant in developed countries but insignificant in emerging markets. Examining occupational AI exposure, we find more positive exposure in occupations intensive in nonroutine interactive tasks and more negative exposure in those intensive in nonroutine analytical tasks.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

The queer Hero versus the Fool bias of the queer trait: An archetypometric analysis of the collective portrayal of queerness in fictional stories

Visibility in media is pivotal for identity development and for broadening societal views of gender and sexuality. Queer representation has increased in recent years, yet damaging stereotypes and tropes persist. Here, we focus on queer portrayal and its perception by audiences in fictional stories (television, film, and literature) by studying characters by their quantified archetypes which are operationalizations of common conceptions such as Hero, Diva, and Outcast. We use the archetypometrics and Fandom's LGBTQIA+ datasets to study samples of fictional characters along the trait differential spanning straight to queer. We find, quantify, and explain a seeming paradox. The characters with the highest queer score present positive primary archetypes and are typically Heroes rather than Fools, Angels rather than Demons, and Adventurers rather than Traditionalists. But evaluation across many stories for the straight-queer trait itself reveals a strong collective-writing bias towards Fool (away from Hero) and no meaningful loading for the other two dimensions. Our analysis offers a population-scale view of the complexities of queer portrayal, while also pointing to risks in blindly training on many-authored story corpora.

cs.CY↗