Export Publication

The publication can be exported in the following formats: APA (American Psychological Association) reference format, IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) reference format, BibTeX and RIS.

Export Reference (APA) 
Gaspar, T., Sousa, C. , Raposo, C. F. & Mouro, C. (2026). Generative AI in Young People’s Everyday Lives: A Mixed-Methods Study of Academic, Recreational, and Affective-Relational Uses. Procedia Computer Science.
Export Reference (IEEE) 
T. Gaspar et al.,  "Generative AI in Young People’s Everyday Lives: A Mixed-Methods Study of Academic, Recreational, and Affective-Relational Uses", in Procedia Computer Science, 2026
Export BibTeX 
@null{gaspar2026_1785918507261,
	year = "2026"
}
Export RIS 
TY  - GEN
TI  - Generative AI in Young People’s Everyday Lives: A Mixed-Methods Study of Academic, Recreational, and Affective-Relational Uses
T2  - Procedia Computer Science
AU  - Gaspar, T.
AU  - Sousa, C. 
AU  - Raposo, C. F.
AU  - Mouro, C.
PY  - 2026
SN  - 1877-0509
AB  - Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) is becoming embedded in young people’s digital ecologies, reshaping how they study, create, seek information, and negotiate relational needs. Yet, existing research often examines academic, recreational, and socio-affective uses separately, offering limited insight into how young people make sense of AI as a multifunctional presence. This mixed-method study explored the everyday use and perceived relevance of GenAI tools among 572 young people living in Portugal. Participants completed a paper-and-pencil questionnaire assessing AI use across three dimensions (academic, recreational, and social-affective) and answered open-ended questions about perceived benefits, changes, and limits. Quantitative findings showed that AI use was most normalised in academic contexts, particularly for clarifying doubts, summarising content, and supporting schoolwork. Recreational and social-affective uses were less frequent, although strongly interconnected among participants who reported broader experimentation. The qualitative analysis identified a central tension between AI as support and AI as substitution. Participants valued AI for efficiency, convenience, creative exploration, and non-judgemental availability, while expressing concerns about dependency, reduced critical thinking, artificialised creativity, emotional isolation, and the replacement of human relationships. Findings highlight the need for AI literacy approaches that address not only academic integrity, but also everyday boundaries, relational ethics, and human-centred digital practices
ER  -