AI’s Empty Efficiency: Rapid Creation at the Expense of Meaning in Student Learning

Abstract

This study investigated the impact of integrating Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) tools into advertising education on students’ work efficiency and their psychological well-being, including their perceptions of the value and meaning of their work, the satisfaction they experience, and the perceived threat to uniqueness. In addition, we also explored how the level of expertise moderates such an impact. The findings yielded important implications for incorporating GAI into advertising and creative communication curricula, highlighting both opportunities for enhancing learning and challenges related to student well-being in AI-augmented creative education.

Keywords

generative artificial intelligence student well-being meaning of work work satisfaction work efficiency advertising education

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Amerstorfer

C. M.

von Münster-Kistner

C. F.

(2021). Student perceptions of academic engagement and student-teacher relationships in problem-based learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.713057

Axelson

R. D.

Flick

(2010). Defining student engagement. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 43(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2011.533096

Bandura

(1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295x.84.2.191

Buell

R. W.

Norton

M. I.

(2011). The labor illusion: How operational transparency increases perceived value. Management Science, 57(9), 1564–1579. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1110.1376

Chakrabarty

Laban

Agarwal

Muresan

C. S.

(2024). Art or artifice? Large language models and the false promise of creativity. In Proceedings of the CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1–34). ACM.

Dennis

A. R.

Lakhiwal

Sachdeva

(2023). AI agents as team members: Effects on satisfaction, conflict, trustworthiness, and willingness to work with. Journal of Management Information Systems, 40(2), 307–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2023.2196773

Ferrari

Paladino

M. P.

Jetten

(2016). Blurring human–machine distinctions: Anthropomorphic appearance in social robots as a threat to human distinctiveness. International Journal of Social Robotics, 8(2), 287–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-016-0338-y

Festinger

(1957). Social comparison theory. Selective Exposure Theory, 16(401), 16–17.

Fried

H. O.

Schmidt

S. S.

Lovell

C. K.

(Eds.), (1993). The measurement of productive efficiency: Techniques and applications. Oxford University Press.

10.

Grundke

(2023). If machines outperform humans: Status threat evoked by and willingness to interact with sophisticated machines in a work-related context. Behaviour & Information Technology, 43(7), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929x.2023.2210688

11.

Habib

(2025). Desperately seeking advertising creativity: AI’s impact. Journal of Advertising Education, 29(2), Article 10980482251359224.

12.

Hemmer

Westphal

Schemmer

Vetter

Vössing

Satzger

(2023). Human-AI collaboration: The effect of AI delegation on human task performance and task satisfaction. In Proceedings of the 28th international conference on intelligent user interfaces (pp. 453–463). ACM.

13.

Holbrook

M. B.

(1999). Consumer value. A Framework for Analysis and Research.

14.

Hou

J. J.

Wang

Yang

(2024). The double-edged roles of generative AI in the creative process: Experiments on design work. Available at SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4739471

15.

Huh

Nelson

M. R.

Russell

C. A.

(2023). ChatGPT, AI advertising, and advertising research and education. Journal of Advertising, 52(4), 477–482. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2023.2227013

16.

Johnes

(2004). 16 efficiency measurement. In International handbook on the economics of education (p. 613). Edward Elgar.

17.

Kahneman

Knetsch

J. L.

Thaler

R. H.

(1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98(6), 1325–1348. https://doi.org/10.1086/261737

18.

Kanbach

D. K.

Heiduk

Blueher

Schreiter

Lahmann

(2024). The GenAI is out of the bottle: Generative artificial intelligence from a business model innovation perspective. Review of Managerial Science, 18(4), 1189–1220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-023-00696-z

19.

Koh

Y. J.

Sundar

S. S.

(2010). Heuristic versus systematic processing of specialist versus generalist sources in online media. Human Communication Research, 36(2), 103–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01370.x

20.

Leung

J. C.

(2024). Towards human-level artificial intelligence agents.

21.

Liu

Ren

Nyagoga

L. M.

Stonier

(2023). Future of education in the era of generative artificial intelligence: Consensus among Chinese scholars on applications of ChatGPT in schools. Future in Educational Research, 1(1), 72–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/fer3.10

22.

Locke

E. A.

(1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In Dunnette

M. D.

(Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1351). Wiley.

23.

Locke

E. A.

Henne

(1986). Work motivation theories. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 1–35.

24.

Morgan

Russell

L. T. M.

Jocic

(2024). Student perspectives on generative AI integration in advertising education. Journal of Advertising Education, Article 10980482251376947. https://doi.org/10.1177/10980482251376947

25.

Myers

D. G.

Ridl

(1979). Can we all be better than average? Psychology Today (August), 89–98.

26.

Nakavachara

Potipiti

Chaiwat

(2024). Experimenting with generative AI: Does ChatGPT really increase everyone's productivity? arXiv Preprint arXiv:2403.01770.

27.

Norton

M. I.

Mochon

Ariely

(2012). The IKEA effect: When labor leads to love. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 453–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.08.002

28.

Noy

Zhang

(2023). Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative artificial intelligence. Science, 381(6654), 187–219. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adh2586

29.

Payne

Holt

(2001). Diagnosing customer value: Integrating the value process and relationship marketing. British Journal of Management, 12(2), 159–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00192

30.

Peck

Shu

S. B.

(2009). The effect of mere touch on perceived ownership. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(3), 434–447. https://doi.org/10.1086/598614

31.

Pierce

J. L.

Kostova

Dirks

K. T.

(2001). Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 298–310. https://doi.org/10.2307/259124

32.

Pratt

M. G.

Ashforth

B. E.

(2003). Fostering meaningfulness in working and at work. Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline. K. S. Cameron, JE Dutton and RE Quinn.

33.

Richards

(2010). Process and way of life–four key issues. In The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 189–215). Cambridge University Press.

34.

Riek

B. M.

Mania

E. W.

Gaertner

S. L.

McDonald

S. A.

Lamoreaux

M. J.

(2010). Does a common ingroup identity reduce intergroup threat? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(4), 403–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430209346701

35.

Sadeghian

Hassenzahl

(2022). The “artificial” colleague: Evaluation of work satisfaction in collaboration with non-human coworkers. In 27th international conference on intelligent user interfaces (pp. 27–35). ACM.

36.

Sai

Chamola

(2024). Generative AI for industry 5.0: Analyzing the impact of ChatGPT, DALLE, and other models. IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society.

37.

Schnell

Höge

Pollet

(2016). Predicting meaning in work: Theory, data, implications. In Positive psychology in search for meaning (pp. 87–98). Routledge.

38.

Singh

Tarkar

(2022). Future of work: How artificial intelligence will change the dynamics of work culture and influence employees work satisfaction postcovid-19. In Proceedings of international conference on communication and artificial intelligence: Iccai 2021 (pp. 239–260). Springer Nature Singapore.

39.

Snyder

C. R.

Fromkin

H. L.

(1977). Abnormality as a positive characteristic: The development and validation of a scale measuring need for uniqueness. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 86(5), 518–527. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843x.86.5.518

40.

Spreitzer

G. M.

(1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442–1465. https://doi.org/10.2307/256865

41.

Stephan

W. G.

Renfro

C. L.

Davis

M. D.

(2008). The role of threat in intergroup relations (pp. 55–72). Improving intergroup relations: Building on the legacy of Thomas F. Pettigrew.

42.

Suls

Wan

C. K.

Sanders

G. S.

(1988). False consensus and false uniqueness in estimating the prevalence of health‐protective behaviors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18(1), 66–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1988.tb00006.x

43.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Political psychology (p. 276293). Psychology Press.

44.

Takaffoli

Mäkelä

(2024). Generative AI in user experience design and research: How do UX practitioners, teams, and companies use GenAI in industry?.

45.

Tellis

G. J.

Gaeth

G. J.

(1990). Best value, price-seeking, and price aversion: The impact of information and learning on consumer choices. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 34–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299005400203

46.

Thaler

(1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1(1), 39–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(80)90051-7

47.

Thomas

K. W.

Velthouse

B. A.

(1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 666–681. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1990.4310926

48.

Tian

K. T.

Bearden

W. O.

Hunter

G. L.

(2001). Consumers' need for uniqueness: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 5066. https://doi.org/10.1086/321947

49.

Wagler

(2025). Exploring generative AI as part of the design and creative process. Journal of Advertising Education, 29(2), 118–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/10980482251347510

50.

Wrzesniewski

(2003). Finding positive meaning in work. Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline, 296, 308.

51.

Yang

(2023). Preparing for the new era of artificial intelligence: My experience of teaching “artificial intelligence in advertising”. Journal of Advertising Education, 27(2), 101–116.

52.

You

J. W.

(2016). The relationship among college students’ psychological capital, learning empowerment, and engagement. Learning and Individual Differences, 49, 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.05.001