Abstract
<p>While perspectives on the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in assessment in higher education have been widely reported, less is known about discipline-specific concern. Here we focus on Psychology, where essays are central to assessment and require context-dependent judgement, critical evaluation, synthesis of evidence, and scientific reasoning. To ensure that findings reflect shared, cross-institution concerns in this discipline, we conducted semi-structured focus groups with Psychology students (N = 11) and staff (N = 14) from three UK universities differing in geographical location and entry-requirements. Discussions explored views on GenAI in HE for assessment, including reactions to examples comparing human and AI-generated feedback. Thematic analysis identified three themes: (1) Human-Machine Ambiguity, (2) Overreliance, Weakening Cognition and the Value of Education, and (3) The Social Contract: Personal and Interpersonal Values. Consistent with previous research, participants raised concerns about ethics, fairness, data integrity, and the impact on learning and cognition. Extending existing literature, findings highlight concerns about the erosion of trust and the social contract underpinning higher education, which could threaten the experience of staff and students. With its focus on essays in assessment, psychology provides a strong test case for examining the views of staff and students on AI-grading more generally.</p>