Moderate evidence
More
Chinese art teachers who use AI more fear replacement more, a 381-teacher survey finds
Study title: Artificial intelligence (AI) adoption and Chinese art teachers' career exploration behavior: The roles of job substitution risks, job insecurity, and organizational AI readiness
- Evidence type
- Survey
- Sample
- n = 381
- Sources
- 1 sourcePeer-reviewed
- Published
- 2 min read
- Truvace record
- TRV-2026-2463cite or check it
Study title: Artificial intelligence (AI) adoption and Chinese art teachers' career exploration behavior: The roles of job substitution risks, job insecurity, and organizational AI readiness
A cross-sectional survey of 381 art teachers at Chinese universities found that teachers who used AI tools more also reported more fear that AI could replace their work and more worry about their jobs. They also reported more career exploration over the previous three months.
Read the study abstract
The increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in art education raises questions about teachers' professional security and career development. Drawing primarily on Conservation of Resources (COR) theory and, in a complementary manner, on Career Construction Theory (CCT), this cross-sectional study examined associations among AI adoption, perceived job substitution risk, job insecurity, career exploration behavior, and organizational AI readiness. Survey data from 381 Chinese art teachers were analyzed using…
The problem
In a survey of 381 Chinese art teachers, heavier AI use was associated with greater perceived risk of being replaced (B = .40) and greater job insecurity (B = .37).
In brief
The association between AI use and career exploration was strongest where teachers rated their institution as more ready for AI: negligible at low readiness (B = -.02), moderate at average readiness (B = .27) and larger at high readiness (B = .57).
The data cannot show cause and effect. Teachers already exploring other careers may be more inclined to adopt AI, and the survey did not measure why teachers explored, whether from threat or interest in growth.
Main points
- Of 500 questionnaires distributed online between July 17 and September 26, 2025, 439 came back and 381 were valid after screening.
- AI adoption was linked to job substitution risk (B = .40) and job insecurity (B = .37); substitution risk was in turn linked to job insecurity (B = .22).
- The total association between AI adoption and career exploration was B = .51; it fell to B = .27 once substitution risk and insecurity were accounted for.
- Substitution risk accounted for an indirect association of B = .14 and job insecurity for B = .08; the combined path was small (B = .02).
- The interaction between AI adoption and organizational AI readiness was positive (B = .36, p < .001).
- The study controlled for gender, age, education, teaching experience, institutional level and weekly AI use, but not professional rank or prior digital skills.
The full story
Teachers rated AI adoption, substitution risk, job insecurity, organizational AI readiness and career exploration on 7-point scales across 22 items. Participants were recruited through personal contacts at selected universities, and respondents received a small gift worth 10 RMB. Data were analysed with a latent-variable structural equation model in Mplus 7.4.
Exploration was linked to substitution risk (B = .35) and job insecurity (B = .22). The authors interpret this through Conservation of Resources theory, with Career Construction Theory suggesting that exploration may reflect threat, growth or both.
The authors recommend that schools communicate AI's supportive role, invest in infrastructure and arts-specific training, and that policymakers add AI literacy to art teacher preparation. The paper was in revision at PLOS One, with the editor asking for changes on method bias and causal wording.
Talk it overFour questions for a class, a team or the dinner table
Who carries this cost, and what would have to change to prevent it?
The problem In a survey of 381 Chinese art teachers, heavier AI use was associated with greater perceived risk of being replaced (B = .40) and greater job insecurity (B = .37).
How do we know? What can this kind of evidence show, and what can’t it?
The evidence This rests on a survey with a sample of 381, from PLOS One.
What does it leave open? What else would you want to know before acting on it?
The record’s own caveat The cross-sectional, self-reported design cannot establish causal order, and reverse causality is possible.
Have you seen AI used this way where you study, work or live? Did it go the same way?
The questions are the same on every record. The details under them are taken from this record as written.
Sources
1 on file- PLOS Onedoi:10.1371/journal.pone.0362478
ace





The debate