Me and My AI Bot: An SEM–MEREC–VIKOR Analysis of the “AIholic” Phenomenon and University Students’ Dependence on Generative AI Chatbots
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2298/YJOR260315012SKeywords:
Chatbots, dependency, digital interactions, generative AI, multi-criteria decision-making, MEREC, VIKORAbstract
“AIholic” refers to the excessive reliance on artificial intelligence (AI) systems, where users depend on these systems not only for practical support, such as information searching, problem-solving, and task completion, but also for reassurance, validation, and emotional comfort. In higher education, Generative AI chatbots have become widely used in universities because they provide students with instant, personalized, and continuous academic support, not only practical support such as information searching, problemsolving, and task completion but also emotional support such as reassurance and validation. However, this rapid use has also raised concerns about students’ growing dependence on these tools. Based on self-determination theory and compulsive behavior theory, this study examines how situational triggers and psychological needs, namely, competence, relatedness, and autonomy, are associated with students’ actual dependency level on generative AI chatbots and their inability to reduce use. The study also examines the moderating role of risk perception in these relationships. Data collected from 787 university students in Iraq and Oman were analyzed using structural equation modeling. In addition, the MEREC method was used to determine the objective weights of the main criteria, while the VIKOR method was applied to compare the weighted determinants across the two national contexts. The findings indicate that psychological needs, especially competence and autonomy, and contextual triggers are important factors in explaining chatbot dependency. Students use chatbots not only for academic support but also for reassurance, connection, and self-directed learning. Furthermore, the results from using the multi-criteria decision-making approaches reveal contextual differences between the two countries. Risk perception received the highest weight in Oman, whereas triggers received the highest weight in Iraq. This study explains AI dependency as a psychological and behavioral phenomenon and provides practical insights for the responsible use of generative AI tools in higher education.
References
A. Chaturvedi, “Exploring empathy in artificial intelligence: Synthesis and paths for future research,” Information Discovery and Delivery, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 406–424, 2025, doi: 10.1108/IDD-03-2024-0048.
M. Salah, F. Abdelfattah, and H. Al Halbusi, “The good, the bad, and the GPT: Reviewing the impact of generative artificial intelligence on psychology,” Current Opinion in Psychology, vol. 59, Art. no. 101872, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2024.101872.
H. A. Kissinger, E. Schmidt, and D. Huttenlocher, The Age of AI: And Our Human Future. London, U.K.: Hachette, 2021.
R. M. Ryan and E. L. Deci, “Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being,” American Psychologist, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 68–78, 2000, doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.
W. C. Morales-García, L. Z. Sairitupa-Sanchez, S. B. Morales-García, and M. Morales-García, Frontiers “Development and validation of a scale for dependence on artificial intelligence in university students,” in 10.3389/feduc.2024.1323898. Education, vol. 9, Art. no. 1323898, 2024, doi:
G. J. Meerkerk, R. J. Van Den Eijnden, A. A. Vermulst, and H. F. L. Garretsen, “The compulsive internet use scale (CIUS): Some psychometric properties,” CyberPsychology & Behavior, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–6, 2009, doi: 10.1089/cpb.2008.0181.
M. Kwon et al., “Development and validation of a smartphone addiction scale (SAS),” PLOS ONE, vol. 8, no. 2, Art. no. e56936, 2013, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0056936.
M. N. Sadiku, S. M. Musa, and U. C. Chukwu, Artificial Intelligence in Education. Bloomington, IN, USA: iUniverse, 2022.
T. K. F. Chiu, Q. Xia, X. Zhou, C. S. Chai, and M. Cheng, “Systematic literature review on opportunities, challenges, and future research recommendations of artificial intelligence in education,” Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, vol. 4, Art. no. 100118, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100118.
T. Wang et al., “Exploring the potential impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on international students in higher education: Generative AI, chatbots, analytics, and international student success,” Applied Sciences, vol. 13, no. 11, Art. no. 6716, 2023, doi: 10.3390/app13116716.
C. K. Y. Chan and W. Hu, “Students’ voices on generative AI: Perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education,” International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, vol. 20, no. 1, Art. no. 43, 2023, doi: 10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8.
Y. K. Dwivedi et al., “So what if ChatGPT wrote it? Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy,” International Journal of Information Management, vol. 71, Art. no. 102642, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642.
J. Borenstein and A. Howard, “Emerging challenges in AI and the need for AI ethics education,” AI and Ethics, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 61–65, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s43681-020-00002-7.
M. Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M. Amiri, E. K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, and J. Antucheviciene, “Determination of objective weights using a new method based on the removal effects of criteria (MEREC),” Symmetry, vol. 13, no. 4, Art. no. 525, 2021, doi: 10.3390/sym13040525.
S. Opricovic and G.-H. Tzeng, “Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 156, no. 2, pp. 445–455, 2004, doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1.
L. D. Shorasulovna, “The role of artificial intelligence in modern pedagogics: Transforming teaching and learning,” International Journal of Pedagogics, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 185–187, 2025, doi: 10.37547/ijp/Volume05Issue02-50.
P. B. Brandtzaeg and A. Følstad, “Chatbots: changing user needs and motivations,” Interactions, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 38–43, 2018, doi: 10.1145/3236669.
A. Rapp, L. Curti, and A. Boldi, “The human side of human-chatbot interaction: A systematic literature review of ten years of research on text-based chatbots,” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, vol. 151, Art. no. 102630, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102630.
Y. K. Dwivedi et al., “Artificial intelligence (AI): Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy,” International Journal of Information Management, 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.002. vol. 57, Art. no. 101994, 2021, doi:
Melisa et al., “Critical thinking in the age of AI: A systematic review of AI’s effects on higher education,” Educational Process: International Journal, vol. 14, Art. no. e2025031, 2025, doi: 10.22521/edupij.2025.14.31.
Y. Fan et al., “Beware of metacognitive laziness: Effects of generative artificial intelligence on learning motivation, processes, and performance,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 489–530, 2025, doi: 10.1111/bjet.13544.
A. Stone, “Student perceptions of academic integrity: A qualitative study of understanding, consequences, and impact,” Journal of Academic Ethics, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 357–375, 2023.
B. Lal, Y. K. Dwivedi, and M. Haag, “Working from home during COVID-19: Doing and managing technology-enabled social interaction with colleagues at a distance,” Information Systems Frontiers, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 1333–1350, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s10796-021-10182-0.
E. J. Medrano-Sánchez, L. S. Cuenca Silva, and G. M. Medrano-Sánchez, “Towards understanding nomophobia: A systematic review of its prevalence, causes, and effects in educational settings,” Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 306321, 2024, doi: 10.36941/ajis-2024-0196.
X. Li, R. Y. T. Seah, and K. F. Yuen, “Mental wellbeing in digital workplaces: The role of digital resources, technostress, and burnout,” Technology in Society, vol. 81, Art. no. 102844, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2025.102844.
M. K. Jones and R. G. Menzies, “The cognitive mediation of obsessive-compulsive handwashing,” Behaviour Research and Therapy, vol. 35, no. 9, pp. 843–850, 1997, doi: 10.1016/S0005-7967(97)00035-1.
J. Luigjes et al., “Defining compulsive behavior,” Neuropsychology Review, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 4–13, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s11065-019-09404-9.
H. Al-Mughairi and P. Bhaskar, “Exploring the factors affecting the adoption AI techniques in higher education: Insights from teachers’ perspectives on ChatGPT,” Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 232–247, 2024, doi: 10.1108/JRIT-092023-0129.
M. S. Hassan, H. Al Halbusi, A. Najem, A. Razali, F. A. M. Abdel Fattah, and K. A. Williams, “Risk perception, self-efficacy, trust in government, and the moderating role of perceived social media content during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Changing Societies & Personalities, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 9–35, 2021, doi: 10.15826/csp.2021.5.1.120.
M. S. Hassan, H. Al Halbusi, A. Razali, R. N. R. Ariffin, and K. A. Williams, “The Swedish gamble: Trust in the government and self-efficacy in the battle to combat COVID-19,” Current Psychology, pp. 1–16, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s12144-022-02947-w.
J. F. Hair, G. T. M. Hult, C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt, A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications, 2017.
R. W. Brislin, “Back-translation for cross-cultural research,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 185–216, 1970, doi: 10.1177/135910457000100301.
K. S. Young, “Internet addiction: The emergence of a new clinical disorder,” CyberPsychology & Behavior, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 237–244, 1998, doi: 10.1089/cpb.1998.1.237.
J. F. Hair, Jr., G. T. M. Hult, C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt, A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications, 2021.
J. Henseler, C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt, “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 43, pp. 115–135, 2015, doi: 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.
J. F. Dawson, “Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how,” Journal of Business and Psychology, vol. 29, pp. 1–19, 2014, doi: 10.1007/s10869-013-9308-7.
A. Eydi and M. GholamAzad, “Proposing a new integrated MEREC-NDEA algorithm for assessing and selecting the optimal sustainable suppliers: A case study,” International Transactions in Operational Research, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 2411–2440, 2026, doi: 10.1111/itor.13586.
M. S. Mohammad Kamari et al., “Economic evaluation of digital suppliers for manufacturing SMEs using Pythagorean neutrosophic TOPSIS and VIKOR with a flexible distance metric,” International Journal of Economic Sciences, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 351–384, 2025, doi: 10.31181/ijes1412025187.
T. Jameel, Y. Yasin, and M. Riaz, “An integrated hybrid MCDM framework for renewable energy prioritization in sustainable development,” Spectrum of Decision Making and Applications, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 124–150, 2026, doi: 10.31181/sdmap31202640.
T.-Y. Lin, K.-C. Hung, J. Jablonsky, and K.-P. Lin, “An enhanced VIKOR and its revisit for the manufacturing process application,” Computers, Materials & Continua, vol. 83, no. 2, pp. 1901–1927, 2025, doi: 10.32604/cmc.2025.063543.
D. Tešić, “A machine learning and multi-criteria decision-making framework for student grade prediction,” Smart Multi-Criteria Analytics and Reasoning Technologies, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 2232, 2025, doi: 10.65069/smart1120253.
P. Rani et al., “Intuitionistic fuzzy distance measure-based approach for adopting the blockchain technology in the logistics industry,” Facta Universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 555–578, 2025, doi: 10.22190/FUME240820051R.
B. Kizielewicz and W. Sałabun, “Benchmark study of re-identification methods based on stochastic fuzzy normalization and their application to decision-making problems in engineering,” Facta Universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 511–532, 2025, doi: 10.22190/FUME240916004K.
D. Špago, A. Husika, S. Isić, and H. Hadžiahmetović, “Hybrid renewable energy systems for public buildings: Optimization and sustainability,” Tehnički Vjesnik, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 495502, 2026, doi: 10.17559/TV-20250224002417.
M. Radovanović, A. Petrovski, A. Behlić, M. Perišić, M. Samopjan, and B. Lakanović, “Application model of MCDM for selection of automatic rifle,” Journal of Decision Analytics and Intelligent Computing, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 185–196, 2023, doi: 10.31181/jdaic10011102023r.
T. Basuri, K. H. Gazi, S. G. Das, and S. P. Mondal, “Ranking higher education institutions using Entropy–VIKOR with generalized pentagonal intuitionistic fuzzy numbers,” Journal of Contemporary Decision Science, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 64–83, 2026, doi: 10.67334/cds2120266.
A. Sarkar and S. S. Goswami, “A review of the application of MCDM methods in business analytics,” Applied Decision Analytics, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 150–180, 2026, doi: 10.66972/ada21202614.
M. Ozcalici, N. Ersoy, and D. Pamucar, “Data-driven large-cap US stock price forecasting using a hybrid MCDM-machine learning approach,” Spectrum of Operational Research, pp. 1–31, 2026, doi: 10.31181/sor202771.
A. Alnoor, A. G. Atiyah, M. Y. Alhasnawi, Y. R. Muhsen, S. Abbas, and X. Chew, “Revealing the determinants of workplace incivility from the perspective of affective events theory using PLS-SEM and MCDM approach,” Current Psychology, vol. 44, no. 23, pp. 17974–17991, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s12144-025-08316-7.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Yugoslav Journal of Operations Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
