Purpose: This study examines artificial intelligence (AI) literacy and its influence on the adoption of human-centered AI among Generation Z (those born between 1997 and 2012) in Pakistan pursuing education and career in Library and Information Science (LIS). Drawing on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) and UNESCO’s AI Competency Framework, the study examines how AI literacy and awareness of human agency shape students’ behavioral intention and actual use of AI in academic research. Methodology: A quantitative survey design was employed, with convenience sampling. Data were collected from 680 MPhil and PhD LIS research students enrolled in seven universities. Descriptive and inferential statistical techniques, including correlation analysis, multiple regression, and moderation analysis, were used to test the proposed research model. Findings: The results indicate that performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and AI literacy have significant positive effects on students’ behavioral intention and academic performance with AI. In this study, AI literacy was conceptualized as a competency-based antecedent and was found to be the most effective predictor of AI adoption; it was not examined as an outcome of prior adoption. Social influence showed mixed effects: it sometimes discouraged adoption when ethical or academic concerns were present, while facilitating conditions had a limited impact. Human agency awareness negatively influenced adoption, reflecting students’ concerns about academic integrity, autonomy, and over-reliance on AI. Behavioral intention was the strongest determinant of actual AI usage. Age and gender moderated selected relationships, whereas qualification level and university type did not. Implications: The findings demonstrate that AI adoption among Gen Z LIS students is primarily literacy-driven and human-centered rather than infrastructure-driven. Universities and academic libraries must prioritize AI literacy education, ethical guidance, and human-centered AI training within LIS curricula to support responsible, effective, and sustainable AI integration in higher education.
AbbasT. (2023). Ethical implications of AI in modern education: Balancing innovation and responsibility. Social Sciences Spectrum, 2(1), 51–57.
2.
AckonM. (2025). Latino/a/x emerging adults' retrospective reports of racialized emotion socialization during childhood, and current experiences of discrimination and mental health: A mixed methods study. Miami University.
3.
AdaborE. S.AddyE.AssyneN.Antwi-BoasiakoE. (2025). Enhancing sustainable academic course delivery using AI in technical universities: An empirical analysis using adaptive learning theory. Sustainable Futures, 10(1), Article 100828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2025.100828
4.
AsifM. J. F. i. A. I. R. (2024). AI and human interaction: Enhancing user experience through intelligent systems. 1(2), 209-249.
5.
BewersdorffA.HornbergerM.NerdelC.SchiffD. S. (2025). AI advocates and cautious critics: How AI attitudes, AI interest, use of AI, and AI literacy build university students' AI self-efficacy. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 8, 100340.
6.
BiaginiG. (2025). Towards an AI-Literate future: A systematic literature review exploring education, ethics, and applications. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 35(4), 1–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-025-00466-w
7.
ChanC. K. Y.LeeK. K. (2023). The AI generation gap: Are gen Z students more interested in adopting generative AI such as ChatGPT in teaching and learning than their gen X and millennial generation teachers?Smart learning environments, 10(1), 60. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00269-3
8.
DubeT. V.RammutloaM. W.MatatieleR. (2024). Skills and competencies of academic librarians to use information technology tools in the digital era: A systematic literature review. Information Development, Article 02666669241302054. https://doi.org/10.1177/02666669241302054
9.
DuongC. D.LeT. T.DangN. S.DoN. D.VuA. T. (2024). Unraveling the determinants of digital entrepreneurial intentions: do performance expectancy of artificial intelligence solutions matter?Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 31(7), 1327–1356. https://doi.org/10.1108/jsbed-02-2024-0065
10.
FaganJ. C.OstermillerH.PriceE.SappL. (2021). Librarian, faculty, and student perceptions of academic librarians: Study introduction and literature review. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 27(1), 38–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614533.2019.1691026
11.
FangW.NaM.AlamS. S. (2025). Usage intention of AI among academic librarians in China: Extension of UTAUT model. Sustainability, 17(7), 2833. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17072833
12.
FanniR.SteinkoglerV. E.ZampedriG.PiersonJ. (2023). Enhancing human agency through redress in artificial intelligence systems. AI & Society, 38(2), 537–547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01454-7
13.
GamageA. (2025). Research design, philosophy, and quantitative approaches in scientific research methodology. Scholars Journal of Engineering and Technology, 13(02), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.36347/sjet.2025.v13i02.004
14.
GeorgeD.MalleryM. (2010). SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference, 17.0 update (10a ed.). Boston: Pearson.
15.
GilmoreC. N. (2012). Measuring worker expectations of information technology at the organizational level: Identifying how end-user expectations influence productivity-enhancing behavior: Wichita State University, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.
16.
HagertyA.RubinovI. (2019). Global AI ethics: A review of the social impacts and ethical implications of artificial intelligence. arXiv: 1907.07892 [cs.CY], July 2019. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1907.07892
17.
HasaK. (2023). Examining the OECD’s perspective on AI in education policy: A critical analysis of language and structure in the ‘AI and the future of skills’(AIFS) document and its implications for the higher education. University of British Columbia.
18.
HossainZ. (2025a). Integrating AI literacy into library and information science education and practice: A human-centered approach. Library Hi Tech News.
19.
HossainZ. (2025b). School librarians developing AI literacy for an AI-driven future: Leveraging the AI citizenship framework with scope and sequence. Library Hi Tech News, 42(2), 17–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/lhtn-10-2024-0186
20.
HossanD.Dato’MansorZ.JaharuddinN. S. (2023). Research population and sampling in quantitative study. International Journal of Business and Technopreneurship (IJBT), 13(3), 209–222. https://doi.org/10.58915/ijbt.v13i3.263
21.
JantunenM. (2025). Integration of artificial intelligence ethics into software engineering processes: Challenges, concerns, and opportunities. JYU dissertations.
22.
Kaletski-MaiselG.JowallahR. (2025). Empowering citizens: Preparing for the future of digital literacy and AI in education digital citizenship and the future of AI engagement, ethics, and privacy (pp. 133–150). IGI Global Scientific Publishing.
23.
KhodabinM.ArsalaniA. (2025). Artificial intelligence literacy as national strategy: A systematic review of policy, equity, and capacity building across the global south. Journal of World Sociopolitical Studies, 9(4), 777–814.
24.
KongS.-C.CheungW. M. Y.ZhangG. (2023). Evaluating an artificial intelligence literacy programme for developing university students’ conceptual understanding, literacy, empowerment and ethical awareness. Educational Technology & Society, 26(1), 16–30.
25.
KotlyarI.KarakowskyL. (2012). The influence of team demographic composition on individual helping behavior. Psychology, 3(12), 1010–1017. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2012.312152
26.
LabajováL. (2023). The State of AI: Exploring the Perceptions, Credibility, and Trustworthiness of the Users towards AI-Generated Content. Master’s Thesis, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden.
27.
LeeA.WongY.NeoX. S. J. (2024). The role of educational institutions in shaping student self-perception. 7(2), 57-64.
28.
LichtenthalerU. (2020). Extremes of acceptance: Employee attitudes toward artificial intelligence. Journal of Business Strategy, 41(5), 39–45. https://doi.org/10.1108/jbs-12-2018-0204
29.
LinW.S. (2012). Perceived fit and satisfaction on web learning performance: IS continuance intention and task-technology fit perspectives. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 70(7), 498–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2012.01.006
30.
MarupingL. M.BalaH.VenkateshV.BrownS. A. (2017). Going beyond intention: Integrating behavioral expectation into the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(3), 623–637. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23699
31.
MerloT. R. (2016). Factors influencing knowledge management use in technology enterprises with headquarters in the southern United States. Capella University.
32.
MikeladzeT.MeijerP. C.VerhoeffR. P. (2024). A comprehensive exploration of artificial intelligence competence frameworks for educators: A critical review. European Journal of Education, 59(3), e12663.
33.
MutawaA. M.SruthiS. (2025). UNESCO’s AI competency framework: Challenges and opportunities in educational settings. Impacts of Generative AI on the Future of Research and Education, 75–96.
34.
NgD. T. K.LeungJ. K. L.ChuK. W. S.QiaoM. S. (2021). AI literacy: Definition, teaching, evaluation and ethical issues. Proceedings of the association for information science and technology, 58(1), 504–509. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.487
35.
ParkS. Y. (2009). An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students' behavioral intention to use e-learning. Journal of educational technology & society, 12(3), 150–162.
36.
PeñarrojaV.SánchezJ.GameroN.OrengoV.ZornozaA. M. (2019). The influence of organisational facilitating conditions and technology acceptance factors on the effectiveness of virtual communities of practice. Behaviour & Information Technology, 38(8), 845–857. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929x.2018.1564070
37.
PurwantoA. N. I. (2025). Human-centered AI: Designing intelligent systems that empower, not replace. RIGGS: Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Business, 4(3), 3212–3221. https://doi.org/10.31004/riggs.v4i3.2450
38.
RehmanA. U.RazaM. A.AbbasN. (2025). Understanding AI adoption in education: The role of readiness, confidence, and social influence among Pakistani students. Innovation Journal of Social Sciences and Economic Review, 7(1), 64–78. https://doi.org/10.36923/ijsser.v7i1.300
39.
RumangkitS.SurjandyS.BillmanA. (2023). The effect of performance expectancy, facilitating condition, effort expectancy, and perceived easy to use on intention to using media support learning based on unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT). Paper presented at the E3S web of conferences.
40.
ShwedehF. (2024). The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into decision support systems within higher education institutions. Nanotechnology Perceptions, 20(5), 331–357.
41.
SinghD. (2025). Artificial intelligence and applications in library and information science (LIS): Transforming the future of libraries. International Journal of Information Studies, 17(4), 186–196. https://doi.org/10.6025/ijis/2025/17/4/186-196
42.
SinghR. K.KushwahaB. P. (2021). An assessment of the behavioral intention of generation Z toward the adoption of digital learning applications IoT and cloud computing for societal good (pp. 159–180). Springer.
43.
TomaS. G.HudeaO. S. (2024). Generation Z STUDENTS'PERCEPTIONS on the abilities, skills and competencies required in the age of artificial intelligence systems. Amfiteatru Economic, 26(65), 162–180. https://doi.org/10.24818/ea/2024/65/162
44.
VenkateshV.BrownS. A.MarupingL. M.BalaH. (2008). Predicting different conceptualizations of system use: The competing roles of behavioral intention, facilitating conditions, and behavioral expectation. MIS Quarterly, 32(3), 483–502. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148853
45.
VincentT. (2021). Bridging the gap between humans and machines for the drilling, industry. UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA: A thesis. https://hdl.handle.net/11244/332340
46.
WangC.WangH.LiY.DaiJ.GuX.YuT. (2025). Factors influencing university students’ behavioral intention to use generative artificial intelligence: Integrating the theory of planned behavior and AI literacy. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 41(11), 6649–6671. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2024.2383033
47.
WebbM. R. (2024). Changing perspectives of missions: A grounded theory study examining factors shaping gen Z’s understanding of missions. Biola University.
48.
WilsonA. L. (2024). Examining the digital literacy competencies and practices of generation Z employees in higher education. University of Texas at Tyler.
49.
XuC.JingF.LuY.NiY.TuckerJ.WuD.OngJ.ZhangQ.TangW.Therapy (2022). Summarizing methods for estimating population size for key populations: A global scoping review for human immunodeficiency virus research. AIDS Research and Therapy, 19(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12981-022-00434-7
50.
YavichR. J. E. S. (2025). Will the use of AI undermine students independent thinking. Education Sciences, 15(6), 669. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15060669
51.
YiY. (2021). Establishing the concept of AI literacy. Jahr–European Journal of Bioethics, 12(2), 353–368. https://doi.org/10.21860/j.12.2.8
52.
ZhaoX.LiuW.YueS.ChenJ.XiaD.BingK.WangK. (2025). Factors influencing medical students’ adoption of AI educational agents: An extended UTAUT model. BMC Medical Education, 25(1), 1678. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-08234-z
