Vol. 13 No. 1 (2025)
March 2025

Articles

Antecedents of students’ behavioural intention to use generative artificial intelligence: Quantitative research

Published 2024-03-01

  • Regina Lenart-Gansiniec
    • ,
  • Barbara A. Sypniewska
    • ,
  • Jin Chen
    • ,
  • Konrad Janowski

Regina Lenart-Gansiniec
Jagiellonian University

Barbara A. Sypniewska
University of Economics and Human Sciences in Warsaw

Jin Chen
Tsinghua University

Konrad Janowski
University of Economics and Human Sciences in Warsaw

Abstract

Objective: The article aims to identify factors that influence students’ behavioural intentions to use generative artificial intelligence (GenAI).

Research Design & Methods: We proposed a research model based on the theory of planned behaviour, the technology acceptance model and a literature review.

Findings: The results show that attitude, perceived usefulness, perceived quality, and perceived support from higher education institutions positively impact students’ behavioural intention to use GenAI.

Implications & Recommendations: The findings allowed us to propose two practical implications for academic teachers and managers of higher education institutions. Firstly, we recommend supporting students in terms of their knowledge, skills and conscious use of GenAI. Comprehensive education and other forms of training may be of use here. Secondly, we recommend that educational establishments clearly define their expectations regarding students’ use of GenAI, particularly how and when they can safely use GenAI, not only during their studies.

Contribution & Value Added: Our study offers a new multilevel model of students’ behavioural intentions to use generative GenAI. It enables the synthesis of our research results and the organisation of variables influencing students’ behavioural intention to use GenAI, as well as the relations between them. Furthermore, as far as we are aware, we are the first to encompass aspects of the perceived quality and ethics of students using GenAI in our research.

Keywords

generative artificial intelligence, GenAI, students, antecedents, intention, SEM model

(PDF) Save

Author Biography

Regina Lenart-Gansiniec

Full Professor at the Faculty of Management and Social Communication of the Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Poland. Her scientific interests focus on strategic management, particularly in knowledge management, organizational learning and crowdsourcing. She utilizes both quantitative and qualitative research methods in her studies.

Barbara A. Sypniewska

Ph.D. in social sciences in management and quality science, and a master’s degree in psychology. Her scientific interests focus on human capital management and business psychology.

Jin Chen

Full Professor at the Department of Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Strategy of the Tsinghua University, China. He is also director of the Research Center for Technological Innovation, at Tsinghua University. His research interests include innovation.

Konrad Janowski

Associate Professor at the Institute of Psychology of the University of Economics and Human Sciences in Warsaw, Poland. His research interests include psychology.

References

  1. Aguinis, H., & Molina-Azorín, J.F. (2015). Using multilevel modelling and mixed methods to make theoretical progress in micro-foundations for strategy research. Strategic Organization, 13(4), 353-364. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127015594622
  2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t
  3. Bagozzi, R.P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02723327
  4. Bonsu, E., & Baffour-Koduah, D. (2023). From the consumers’ side: Determining students’ perception and intention to use ChatGPT in Ghanaian higher education. Journal of Education, Society & Multiculturalism, 4(1), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.2478/jesm-2023-0001
  5. Brown, T.A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research, second edition (2nd ed.). Guilford Publications
  6. Chan, C.K.Y., & Hu, W. (2023). Students’ voices on generative AI: Perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.00290 on October 29, 2023.
  7. Choudhury, A., & Shamszare, H. (2023). Investigating the impact of user trust on the adoption and use of ChatGPT: Survey analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 25, e47184. https://doi.org/10.2196/47184
  8. Conner, M., & Armitage, C.J. (1998). Extending the theory of planned behavior: A review and avenues for further research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(15), 1429-1464. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01685.x
  9. Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 13(3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
  10. Dwivedi, Y.K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E.L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A.K., Baabdullah, A.M., Koohang, A., Raghavan, V., Ahuja, M., Albanna, H., Albashrawi, M. A., Al-Busaidi, A. S., Balakrishnan, J., Barlette, Y., Basu, S., Bose, I., Brooks, L., Buhalis, D., … Wright, R. (2023). Opinion Paper: “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71(102642), 102642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642
  11. Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived organizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5), 812-820. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.5.812
  12. Field, A.P. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS: and sex and drugs and rock ‘n’ roll. London: Sage.
  13. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
  14. Foroughi, B., Senali, M.G., Iranmanesh, M., Khanfar, A., Ghobakhloo, M., Annamalai, N., & Naghmeh-Abbaspour, B. (2023). Determinants of intention to use ChatGPT for educational purposes: Findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2226495
  15. Gill, S.S., Xu, M., Patros, P., Wu, H., Kaur, R., Kaur, K., Fuller, S., Singh, M., Arora, P., Parlikad, A. K., Stankovski, V., Abraham, A., Ghosh, S.K., Lutfiyya, H., Kanhere, S.S., Bahsoon, R., Rana, O., Dustdar, S., Sakellariou, R., … Buyya, R. (2024). Transformative effects of ChatGPT on modern education: Emerging Era of AI Chatbots. Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems, 4, 19-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iotcps.2023.06.002
  16. Hair, Joe F., Ringle, C.M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-152. https://doi.org/10.2753/mtp1069-6679190202
  17. Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modelling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
  18. Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  19. Khalil, M., & Er, E. (2023). Will ChatGPT get you caught? Rethinking of Plagiarism Detection. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/2302.04335 on October 29, 2023.
  20. Kozlowski, S.W.J., & Klein, K.J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K.J. Klein (Ed.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions, (pp. 3-90). Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
  21. Kwon, H.R., & Silva, E.A. (2020). Mapping the landscape of behavioral theories: Systematic literature review. Journal of Planning Literature, 35(2), 161-179. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412219881135
  22. Lee, A.H.I., Wang, W.-M., & Lin, T.-Y. (2010). An evaluation framework for technology transfer of new equipment in high technology industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(1), 135-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2009.06.002
  23. Lund, B.D., & Wang, T. (2023). Chatting about ChatGPT: how may AI and GPT impact academia and libraries?. Library Hi Tech News, 40(3), 26-29. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4333415
  24. McDonald, R. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  25. McKelvie, S.J. (1978). Graphic rating scales-How many categories. British Journal of Psychology, 69(2), 185-202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1978.tb01647.x
  26. Michaelidou, N., Micevski, M., & Cadogan, J.W. (2021). Users’ ethical perceptions of social media research: Conceptualisation and measurement. Journal of Business Research, 124, 684-694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.03.005
  27. Ngo, T.T.A. (2023). The perception by university students of the use of ChatGPT in Education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 18(17), 4-19. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v18i17.39019
  28. Panagopoulou, F., Parpoula, C., & Karpouzis, K. (2023). Legal and ethical considerations regarding the use of ChatGPT in education. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/2306.10037 on October 29, 2023.
  29. Paul, J., Ueno, A., & Dennis, C. (2023). ChatGPT and consumers: Benefits, pitfalls and future research agenda. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 47(4), 1213-1225. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12928
  30. Perera, P., & Lankathilaka, M. (2023). AI in Higher Education: A Literature Review of ChatGPT and Guidelines for Responsible Implementation. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 7(6), 306-314. https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2023.7623
  31. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
  32. Raman, R., Mandal, S., Das, P., Kaur, T., Jp, S., & Nedungadi, P. (2023). University students as early adopters of ChatGPT: Innovation Diffusion Study. Research Square, 3085910, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2734142/v1
  33. Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698-714. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.698
  34. Ross, A., & Willson, V.L. (2017). One-Way Anova. In: Basic and Advanced Statistical Tests. SensePublishers, Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6351-086-8_5
  35. Singh, H., & Singh, A. (2023). ChatGPT: Systematic review, applications, and agenda for multidisciplinary research. Journal of Chinese Economic and Business Studies, 21(2), 193-212. https://doi.org/10.1080/14765284.2023.2210482
  36. Stahl, B.C., & Eke, D. (2024). The ethics of ChatGPT-Exploring the ethical issues of an emerging technology. International Journal of Information Management, 74(102700), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102700
  37. Stokel-Walker, C. (2023). ChatGPT listed as author on research papers: many scientists disapprove. Nature, 613(7945), 620-621. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00107-z
  38. Stone-Romero, E.F., Stone, D.L., & Grewal, D. (1997). Development of a multidimensional measure of perceived product quality. Journal of Quality Management, 2(1), 87-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1084-8568(97)90023-7
  39. Strzelecki, A. (2023). To use or not to use ChatGPT in higher education? A study of students’ acceptance and use of technology. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2209881
  40. Stylidis, K., Wickman, C., & Söderberg, R. (2020). Perceived quality of products: a framework and attributes ranking method. Journal of Engineering Design, 31(1), 37-67. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2019.1669769
  41. Tlili, A., Shehata, B., Adarkwah, M.A., Bozkurt, A., Hickey, D.T., Huang, R., & Agyemang, B. (2023). What if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a case study of using chatbots in education. Smart Learning Environments, 10(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00237-x
  42. Wach, K., Duong, C.D., Ejdys, J., Kazlauskaitė, R., Korzynski, P., Mazurek, G., ... & Ziemba, E. (2023). The dark side of generative artificial intelligence: A critical analysis of controversies and risks of ChatGPT. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 11(2), 7-30. https://doi.org/10.15678/EBER.2023.110201
  43. Warshaw, P.R., & Davis, F.D. (1985). Disentangling behavioral intention and behavioral expectation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21(3), 213-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(85)90017-4
  44. Watkins, M.W. (2018). Exploratory factor analysis: A guide to best practice. Journal of Black Psychology, 44(3), 219-246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798418771807
  45. Xu, R., Feng, K., Chen, H., Xu, & Kong, H. (n.d.). ChatGPT vs. Google: A comparative study of search performance and user experience. Arxiv.org. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2307/2307.01135.pdf on October 29, 2023.
  46. Yilmaz, H., Maxutov, S., Baitekov, A., & Balta, N. (2023). Student attitudes towards Chat GPT: A Technology Acceptance Model Survey. International Educational Review, 1(1), 57-83. https://doi.org/10.58693/ier.114

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.