The paradox of productive irritation

Mapping the stress–coping loop that sustains generative-AI engagement

Datos Bibliográficos

ID22166263
AutoresAmrullah Satoto (Asia e University), Noor Raihan Ab Hamid (Asia e University), Norlina Kamudin (Asia e University), Andri Dayarana K Silalahi (0000-0002-5399-3742, Chaoyang University of Technology, autor de correspondencia)
Año2025
Volumen10
Fecha de publicación2025-12-09
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaFrontiers in Education (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 2504-284X • E-ISSN: 2504-284X
EditorialFrontiers Media SA (PUBLISHER • CH)
DOI10.3389/feduc.2025.1709370
OpenAlexW4417146290
IdiomaEN
Referencias citadas97

Generative AI promises academic efficiency yet often delivers flawed answers, leaving users “irritated but engaged.” To explain this paradox, we merge the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping with Cognitive Dissonance Theory and survey Indonesian and Taiwanese academics who had used ChatGPT for at least a month ( N = 388). Partial Least Squares analysis shows that response failures and low AI literacy sharply raise frustration; frustration, in turn, both directly sustains continuance intention and indirectly does so through heightened resistance to change. The indirect route dominates in Indonesia, where higher switching costs foster inertia, whereas Taiwanese users convert frustration into exploratory recommitment. These findings re-cast resistance as an adaptive buffer rather than a mere barrier and reveal culture-specific coping paths that keep imperfect AI in daily workflows. The study advances stress-and-dissonance theory integration and guides institutions toward balanced strategies combining accuracy auditing, literacy scaffolding, and context-sensitive expectation management

Categorical variable · Cognitive dissonance · Continuance · Distress · Imperfect · Literacy · Sociotechnical system · Usability · AI in Service Interactions · Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education · Mental Health via Writing