Trust-Mediated AI Continuance Intention among Pre-Service Teachers: Integrating UTAUT and the Extended S-O-R-S Framework with AI Brain-Rot Exposure

M. Miftach Fakhri; Andika Isma; Sahabuddin Sahabuddin; Pramudya Asoka Syukur; Rosidah Rosidah

doi:10.35877/454RI.daengku4849

Authors

M. Miftach Fakhri Graduate School, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung, 40154, Indonesia
Andika Isma Universitas Negeri Makassar, Makassar, 90222, Indonesia
Sahabuddin Universitas Negeri Makassar, Makassar, 90222, Indonesia
Pramudya Asoka Syukur Universitas Negeri Makassar, Makassar, 90222, Indonesia
Rosidah Universitas Negeri Makassar, Makassar, 90222, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.35877/454RI.daengku4849

Keywords:

AI brain-rot exposure, Continuance intention, Pre-service teachers, S-O-R-S model, Trust in AI

Abstract

The rapid use of artificial intelligence (AI) in teacher education raises important concerns about whether pre-service teachers will continue using AI despite emerging risks such as perceived AI brain-rot exposure. Therefore, this study examines how UTAUT-related stimuli, institutional support, and perceived AI brain-rot exposure influence the intention to continue using AI through trust in AI. This study employed a quantitative cross-sectional survey design involving 247 pre-service teachers enrolled in teacher education programmes in Indonesia, all of whom had prior experience using AI for academic or teaching-related purposes. Data were analyzed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. The results showed that performance expectancy and social influence significantly increased trust in AI, whereas effort expectancy and institutional support did not significantly influence trust. Perceived AI brain-rot exposure also significantly influenced trust in AI, but the relationship was positive, suggesting that awareness of AI-related cognitive risks may coexist with selective or calibrated trust. Trust in AI strongly influenced continuance intention and mediated the effects of performance expectancy, social influence, and perceived AI brain-rot exposure on the continuance intention. The model explained 72.1% of the variance in trust in AI, and 62.6% of the variance in continuance intention. This study contributes to the literature by extending the UTAUT and S–O–R with a stressor perspective and by introducing perceived AI brain-rot exposure as an emerging construct in AI-in-education adoption research. These findings suggest that teacher education programmes should prioritize demonstrating AI's concrete pedagogical benefits and fostering reflective AI literacy to build trust, rather than relying solely on institutional policy or ease-of-use considerations.

References

Abdelazim, A., Al Breiki, M., & Khlaif, Z. N. (2025). AI in education: The mediating role of perceived trust in adoption decisions of school leaders. Education and Information Technologies, 30(15), 20943–20975. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13596-4

Acosta-Enriquez, B. G., Guzmán Valle, M. D. L. Á., Arbulú Ballesteros, M., Arbulú Castillo, J. C., Arbulu Perez Vargas, C. G., Torres, I. S., Silva León, P. M., & Saavedra Tirado, K. (2025a). What is the influence of psychosocial factors on artificial intelligence appropriation in college students? BMC Psychology, 13(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-02328-x

Acosta-Enriquez, B. G., Guzmán Valle, M. D. L. Á., Arbulú Ballesteros, M., Arbulú Castillo, J. C., Arbulu Perez Vargas, C. G., Torres, I. S., Silva León, P. M., & Saavedra Tirado, K. (2025b). What is the influence of psychosocial factors on artificial intelligence appropriation in college students? BMC Psychology, 13(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-02328-x

Afroogh, S., Akbari, A., Malone, E., Kargar, M., & Alambeigi, H. (2024). Trust in AI: Progress, Challenges, and Future Directions. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.14680

Al-Amri, N. A., & Al-Abdullatif, A. M. (2024). Drivers of Chatbot Adoption among K–12 Teachers in Saudi Arabia. Education Sciences, 14(9), 1034. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14091034

AL-Hawamleh, A. (2024). Exploring the Satisfaction and Continuance Intention to Use E-Learning Systems: An Integration of the Information Systems Success Model and the Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering Systems, 15(2), 201–214. https://doi.org/10.32985/ijeces.15.2.8

Amir, S., Luk, S. C. Y., Saha, S., Tsyrulneva, I., & Teo, M. T. L. (2025). Measuring Social Trust in AI: How Institutions Shape the Usage Intention of AI-Based Technologies. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2025(1), 4084384. https://doi.org/10.1155/hbe2/4084384

Bentler, P. M., & Huang, W. (2014). On Components, Latent Variables, PLS and Simple Methods: Reactions to Rigdon’s Rethinking of PLS. Rethinking Partial Least Squares Path Modeling: Looking Back and Moving Forward, 47(3), 138–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2014.02.005

Bhat, Mohd. A., Tiwari, C. K., Bhaskar, P., & Khan, S. T. (2024). Examining ChatGPT adoption among educators in higher educational institutions using extended UTAUT model. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 22(3), 331–353. https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-03-2024-0033

Cao, Y., Li, S., Liu, Y., Yan, Z., Dai, Y., Yu, P., & Sun, L. (2025). A Survey of AI-Generated Content (AIGC). ACM Comput. Surv., 57(5). https://doi.org/10.1145/3704262

Ceallaigh, T. J. Ó., O’ Brien, E., Tømte, C., Kulaks?z, T., & Connolly, C. (2025). Rethinking teacher education in an AI world: Perceptions, readiness and institutional support for generative AI integration. European Journal of Teacher Education, 48(5), 914–933. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2025.2563696

Choung, H., David, P., & Ross, A. (2023). Trust in AI and Its Role in the Acceptance of AI Technologies. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 39(9), 1727–1739. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2050543

Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587

Cresswell, J. W. (2017). Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (4th ed., Vol. 4). Pearson Education, Inc.

Duong, C. D. (2024). Modeling the determinants of HEI students’ continuance intention to use ChatGPT for learning: A stimulus–organism–response approach. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 17(2), 391–407. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-01-2024-0006

Duong, C. D., Dao, T. T., Vu, T. N., Ngo, T. V. N., & Tran, Q. Y. (2024). Compulsive ChatGPT usage, anxiety, burnout, and sleep disturbance: A serial mediation model based on stimulus-organism-response perspective. Acta Psychologica, 251, 104622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104622

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146

Foroughi, B., Senali, M. G., Iranmanesh, M., Khanfar, A., Ghobakhloo, M., Annamalai, N., & Naghmeh-Abbaspour, B. (2024). Determinants of Intention to Use ChatGPT for Educational Purposes: Findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 40(17), 4501–4520. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2226495

Fu, S., Li, H., Liu, Y., Pirkkalainen, H., & Salo, M. (2020). Social media overload, exhaustion, and use discontinuance: Examining the effects of information overload, system feature overload, and social overload. Information Processing & Management, 57(6), 102307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2020.102307

Gawronski, B., Sherman, J., & Trope, Y. (2014). Two of what? A conceptual analysis of dual-process theories (pp. 3–19).

Gerlich, M. (2025). AI Tools in Society: Impacts on Cognitive Offloading and the Future of Critical Thinking. Societies, 15(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15010006

Hair, J. F. (Ed.). (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (Second edition). Sage.

Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., & Ray, S. (2021). Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Using R: A Workbook. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80519-7

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

Heaton, B. (2024, December 2). “Brain rot” named Oxford Word of the Year 2024. Oxford University Press. https://corp.oup.com/news/brain-rot-named-oxford-word-of-the-year-2024/

Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T. K., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Diamantopoulos, A., Straub, D. W., Ketchen, D. J., Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., & Calantone, R. J. (2014). Common Beliefs and Reality About PLS: Comments on Rönkkö and Evermann (2013). Organizational Research Methods, 17(2), 182–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114526928

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

Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In R. R. Sinkovics & P. N. Ghauri (Eds.), New Challenges to International Marketing (Vol. 20, p. 0). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1474-7979(2009)0000020014

Jiang, Y., Xie, L., & Cao, X. (2025). Exploring the Effectiveness of Institutional Policies and Regulations for Generative AI Usage in Higher Education. Higher Education Quarterly, 79(4), e70054. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.70054

Kock, N. (2015). Common Method Bias in PLS-SEM: A Full Collinearity Assessment Approach. International Journal of E-Collaboration, 11(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer publishing company.

Liu, Y., Wang, Q., & Lei, J. (2025). Adopting Generative AI in Future Classrooms: A Study of Preservice Teachers’ Intentions and Influencing Factors. Behavioral Sciences, 15(8), 1040. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15081040

Mehrabian, Albert., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. M.I.T. Press.

Paltsoglou, V., & Zafiropoulos, K. (2025). Investigating the Factors Influencing Teachers’ Intention to Use Chatbots in Primary Education in Greece. Open Education Studies, 7(1), 20250104. https://doi.org/10.1515/edu-2025-0104

Panday-Shukla, P. (2025). Exploring generative artificial intelligence in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 165, 105088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2025.105088

Patricia Aguilera-Hermida, A. (2020). College students’ use and acceptance of emergency online learning due to COVID-19. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 1, 100011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2020.100011

Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Henseler, J., & Hair, J. F. (2014). On the Emancipation of PLS-SEM: A Commentary on Rigdon (2012). Rethinking Partial Least Squares Path Modeling: Looking Back and Moving Forward, 47(3), 154–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2014.02.007

Schiavo, G., & Andrao, M. (2026). Talking About Brainrot: Youth Engagement with AI-Generated Content and the Dynamics of Intergenerational Communication. Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3772318.3791483

Strzelecki, A. (2024). Students’ Acceptance of ChatGPT in Higher Education: An Extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. Innovative Higher Education, 49(2), 223–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-023-09686-1

UNESCO. (2025). UNESCO survey: Two-thirds of higher education institutions have or are. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/unesco-survey-two-thirds-higher-education-institutions-have-or-are-developing-guidance-ai-use?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis. (2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540

Viberg, O., Cukurova, M., Feldman-Maggor, Y., Alexandron, G., Shirai, S., Kanemune, S., Wasson, B., Tømte, C., Spikol, D., Milrad, M., Coelho, R., & Kizilcec, R. F. (2025). What Explains Teachers’ Trust in AI in Education Across Six Countries? International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 35(3), 1288–1316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-024-00433-x

Weis, L., Bele, J. L., & Er?ulj, V. (2026). Acceptance and Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: A UTAUT-Based Model Integrating Trust and Privacy. Education Sciences, 16(2), 173. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16020173

Yousef, A. M. F., Alshamy, A., Tlili, A., & Metwally, A. H. S. (2025a). Demystifying the New Dilemma of Brain Rot in the Digital Era: A Review. Brain Sciences, 15(3), 283. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci15030283

Yousef, A. M. F., Alshamy, A., Tlili, A., & Metwally, A. H. S. (2025b). Demystifying the New Dilemma of Brain Rot in the Digital Era: A Review. Brain Sciences, 15(3), 283. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci15030283

Zheng, W., Ma, Z., Sun, J., Wu, Q., & Hu, Y. (2025). Exploring Factors Influencing Continuance Intention of Pre-Service Teachers in Using Generative Artificial Intelligence. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 41(16), 10325–10338. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2024.2433300

Zhou, T., & Ma, X. (2025). Examining generative AI user continuance intention based on the SOR model. Aslib Journal of Information Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-08-2024-0620

Zickar, M. J., & Keith, M. G. (2023). Innovations in Sampling: Improving the Appropriateness and Quality of Samples in Organizational Research. Vol. 10, 315–337. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-052946