JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

The developments in generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) are expected to have a substantial impact on the field of mental health, including the delivery of clinical services and the role of psychologists. However, there is limited knowledge on how psychologists use and perceive GenAI, including its potential, risks and effects on the future psychologist role and professional practice. This includes competency levels among psychologists and factors associated with the intention to use GenAI within the psychology profession.

Objective:

This study examined the use of digital technology and GenAI, perceived competencies, behavioral intention to use GenAI, and perceptions of its future impact on professional practice among psychology students, internship psychologists, and licensed psychologists in Sweden.

Methods:

A national cross-sectional online survey was conducted in January-February 2026 in collaboration with the Swedish Psychological Association. The 36-item survey included closed and open-ended questions, including Likert-scale, nominal scale, and multiple-choice items. A total of 1077 respondents, with 64.7% (n = 697) being women and with mean age of 45.5 years (SD = 13.7), were included in the analyses. Responses were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistical methods, including hierarchical multiple linear regression, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and correlational analysis.

Results:

Approximately one in three psychologists (30.5%, 282/990) reported frequent (daily or weekly) professional use of GenAI, and nearly half (46.6%, 461/990) reported frequent private use, with private and professional use strongly associated (r = .62, P < .001). The most common professional applications of GenAI were information retrieval and knowledge acquisition, text summarization, and drafting, editing, or proofreading. Almost half of psychologist (44.6%, 442/990) reported that their patients or clients had used GenAI for mental health purposes. Responses indicated high levels of general and professional digital competence, whereas lower levels were reported for general and professional GenAI competence. Attitudes toward future professional integration of GenAI were driven primarily by current private and professional GenAI use. The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) variables explained 73.3% of the variance in behavioral intention to use GenAI professionally, with curiosity (β = .44) and performance expectancy (β = .32) emerging as the strongest predictors.

Conclusions:

Psychologists are already integrating GenAI in their everyday work, utilizing multipurpose solutions they are familiar with from private use. However, more than one-third have never used it professionally, indicating an emerging digital divide. The high degree of GenAI use among patients and lack of GenAI expertise highlight the need for increased competencies and further examination of the role of GenAI in the future development of the psychologist role and practice. As experience and curiosity towards GenAI were the strongest correlates of both adoption intention and attitudes toward integration into future professional practice, this should be explored in future research and competency development.