Outcome expectations have a stronger direct influence on technology integration intentions than self-efficacy, and interests contribute directly¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Outcome expectations had a much stronger direct influence on intentions than self-efficacy (0.55 vs. 0.18), and interest had a small but significant direct influence (β = 0.15, p < .05). → Serkan Perkmen 2026

Evidence¶

Serkan Perkmen 2026¶

Serkan Perkmen, Sara Dexter. (2026). From sources of self-efficacy to technology integration intentions: a new social cognitive model. Educational technology research and development. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-026-10623-0

q2 · i? · associational · r1

Path analysis results (Fig. 2) in the 144-participant sample: self-efficacy influenced intentions both directly and indirectly through outcome expectations; outcome expectations' direct path (0.55) exceeded self-efficacy's (0.18); interest's direct path was β = 0.15, p < .05.

"Outcome expectations had a much stronger direct influence on intentions than self-efficacy (0.55 vs. 0.18). Interest had a small but a significant direct influence on intentions (β = 0.15, p < .05)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Mastery experiences are the central source of self-efficacy: they strongly predict self-efficacy and uniquely predict intentions when other variables are controlled — related
• The Social Cognitive Model of Technology Integration explains 55% of variation in preservice teachers' technology integration intentions — related
• Teachers' expectancy beliefs about successfully using AI applications shape their motivation to use them (theoretical argument). — related
• Focal paths are robust to background controls, which did not directly predict AI integration intention — a broader claim this one bears on