Art students in a high-inconsistency scenario report stronger challenge and hindrance appraisals than those in a low-inconsistency scenario¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 2 studies · 2 causal r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 Participants in the high-inconsistency condition reported significantly higher challenge appraisal than those in the low-inconsistency condition (d = 1.22). → Chen Y 2026 q3 i3 Participants in the high-inconsistency condition also reported significantly higher hindrance appraisal than those in the low-inconsistency condition (d = 1.06). → Chen Y 2026 (2)

Evidence¶

Chen Y 2026¶

Chen Y (2026) When universities advocate GAI but practice falls short: student appraisals and creative process engagement in art education. Front. Psychol. 17:1955192. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1955192

q3 · i3 · causal · r2

Classroom-based between-subjects scenario experiment with 160 art undergraduates randomly assigned to high- or low-inconsistency conditions; independent-samples t-tests compared appraisals. High-inconsistency participants reported "significantly higher challenge appraisal" with Cohen's d = 1.22.

"Participants in the high-inconsistency condition reported significantly higher challenge appraisal (M = 4.58, SD = 1.30) than those in the low-inconsistency condition ( M = 2.96, SD = 1.37), t(158) = 7.68, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 1.22."

Chen Y 2026 (2)¶

Chen Y (2026) When universities advocate GAI but practice falls short: student appraisals and creative process engagement in art education. Front. Psychol. 17:1955192. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1955192

q3 · i3 · causal · r2

Same scenario experiment (82 low-, 78 high-inconsistency after screening); t-test on hindrance appraisal. The high-inconsistency group showed "significantly higher hindrance appraisal" with Cohen's d = 1.06.

"Participants in the high-inconsistency condition also reported significantly higher hindrance appraisal ( M = 4.71, SD = 1.27) than those in the low-inconsistency condition (M = 3.30, SD = 1.38), t(158) = 6.71, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 1.06."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Inconsistency relates to creative process engagement through opposing indirect pathways: negative via hindrance appraisal and positive via challenge appraisal — related
• Pathways thinking strengthens the inconsistency–challenge appraisal link and the positive conditional indirect effect, but does not significantly weaken the hindrance pathway — related
• Perceived GAI advocacy–practice inconsistency is positively associated with both hindrance and challenge appraisal in students' actual experiences — related