Generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools are disruptive innovations of recent times that have tranformed numerous sectors, including education. In the realm of management education, platforms such as ChatGPT are redefining teaching methods, tailoring learning pathways and opening new research frontiers. This study examined MBA students’ perceptions of their knowledge, willingness to use and challenges encountered when engaging with generative AI tools, particularly ChatGPT considering differences by gender and by usage frequency. Through purposive sampling, responses were collected from 179 MBA students at management institutes in Bengaluru, Karnataka, via an online survey adapted from the validated questionnaire by Chan and Hu. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS version 26 for Windows. Bootstrapped univariate General Linear Models showed no gender-based disparities in students’ knowledge, willingness or perceived challenges; however, usage frequency of AI tools emerged as a strong predictor of willingness to adopt. Multiple regression results indicated that greater knowledge positively influenced both perceived challenges and willingness, while perceived challenges significantly affected willingness. A Sobel mediation test further demonstrated that challenges partially mediated the effect of knowledge on willingness—suggesting that increased knowledge heightens awareness of potential challenges, which in turn shapes students’ willingness to embrace these tools. These outcomes offer actionable guidance for educators and decision-makers, highlighting the importance of enhancing AI literacy, minimizing barriers to adoption and providing inclusive, experiential learning environments to support the responsible and confident integration of generative AI in management education.
AbouammohN., AlhasanK., RainaR., MalkiK. A., AljamaanF., TamimiI., MuaygilR., WahabiH., JamalA., & Al-TawfiqJ. A., Al-EyadhyA., SolimanM., & TemsahM. (2023). Exploring Perceptions and Experiences of ChatGPT in Medical Education: A qualitative study among medical college faculty and students in Saudi Arabia. medRxiv 7.
2.
AgarwalR., & PrasadJ. (1997). The role of innovation characteristics and perceived voluntariness in the acceptance of information technologies. Decision Sciences, 28(3), 557–582.
3.
AldossaryA. S., AljindiA. A., & AlamriJ. M. (2024). The role of generative AI in education: Perceptions of Saudi students. Contemporary Educational Technology, 16(4), ep536.
4.
Al MurshidiG., ShulginaG., KapuzaA., & CostleyJ. (2024). How understanding the limitations and risks of using ChatGPT can contribute to willingness to use. Smart Learning Environments, 11(1), 36.
5.
BaileyD., SouthamA., & CostleyJ. (2021). Digital storytelling with chatbots: Mapping L2 participation and perception patterns. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 18(1), 85–103.
6.
CampbellS., GreenwoodM., PriorS., ShearerT., WalkemK., YoungS., BywatersD., & WalkerK. (2020). Purposive sampling: Complex or simple? Research case examples. Journal of Research in Nursing, 25(8), 652–661.
7.
ChanC. K. Y., & ZhouW. (2023). Deconstructing student perceptions of generative AI (GenAI) through an expectancy value theory (EVT)-based instrumenthttps://arxiv.org/abs/2305.01186
8.
ChanC. K. Y., & HuW. (2023). Students’ voices on generative AI: Perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education. arXiv:2305.00290.
9.
ChenY., JensenS., AlbertL. J., GuptaS., & LeeT. (2023). Artificial intelligence (AI) student assistants in the classroom: Designing chatbots to support student success. Information Systems Frontiers, 25, 161–182.
10.
CronbachL. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.
11.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
12.
DahmashA. B., AlabdulkareemM., AlfutaisA., KamelA. M., AlkholaiwiF., AlshehriS., ZahraniY. A., & AlmoaiqelM. (2020). Artificial intelligence in radiology: Does it impact medical student’s preference for radiology as their future career?BJR Open, 2(1), 20200037.
13.
DubeyG., HasanM., & AlamA. (2022). Artificial intelligence (AI) and Indian education system: Promising applications, potential effectiveness and challenges. Towards Excellence, 14(2), 259–269.
14.
EsselH. B., VlachopoulosD., Tachie-MensonA., JohnsonE. E., & BaahP. K. (2022). The impact of a virtual teaching assistant (chatbot) on students’ learning in Ghanaian higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19, 57.
15.
FaulF., ErdfelderE., LangA. G., & BuchnerA. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior research methods, 39(2), 175–191.
Fui-Hoon NahF., ZhengR., CaiJ., SiauK., & ChenL. (2023). Generative AI and ChatGPT: Applications, challenges, and AI–human collaboration. Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research, 25(3), 277–304.
18.
GasaymehA. M. M., BeiratM. A., & Abu QbeitaA. A. A. (2024). University students’ insights of generative artificial intelligence (AI) writing tools. Education Sciences, 14(10), 1062.
19.
GayedJ. M., CarlonM. K. J., OriolaA. M., & CrossJ. S. (2022). Exploring an AI-based writing assistant’s impact on English language learners. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100055.
20.
GhimireA., & EdwardsJ. (2024). From guidelines to governance: A study of ai policies in education. InInternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 299–307). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.
21.
GillissenA., KochanekT., ZupanicM., & EhlersJ. (2022). Medical students’ perceptions towards digitalization and artificial intelligence: A mixed-methods study. Healthcare, 10(4), 723. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10040723
22.
GreenS. B. (1991). How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis. Multivariate behavioral research, 26(3), 499–510.
23.
HewK. F., HuangW., DuJ., & JiaC. (2023). Using chatbots to support student goal setting and social presence in fully online activities: Learner engagement and perceptions. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 35, 40–68.
24.
HmoudM., SwaityH., HamadN., KarramO., & DaherW. (2024). Higher education students’ task motivation in the generative artificial intelligence context: The case of ChatGPT. Information, 15(1), 33.
25.
JefreyT. (2020). Understanding college student perceptions of artificial intelligence. Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 18(2), 8–13.
26.
Michel-VillarrealR., Vilalta-PerdomoE., Salinas-NavarroD. E., Thierry-AguileraR., & GerardouF. S. (2023). Challenges and opportunities of generative AI for higher education as explained by ChatGPT. Education Sciences, 13(9), 856.
27.
NikolopoulouK. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence in higher education: Exploring ways of harnessing pedagogical practices with the assistance of ChatGPT. International Journal of Changes in Education, 1(2), 103–111. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewIJCE42022489
28.
NunnallyJ. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
29.
OdomL. R., & Morrow JrJ. R. (2006). What’s this R? A correlational approach to explaining validity, reliability and Objectivity coefficients. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 10(2), 137–145.
30.
ParkC. J., YiP. H., & SiegelE. L. (2020). Medical student perspectives on the impact of artificial intelligence on the practice of medicine. Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology, 50(5), 614–619.
31.
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.
32.
RamanR., MandalS., DasP., KaurT., SanjanasriJ. P., & NedungadiP. (2023). University students as early adopters of ChatGPT: Innovation Diffusion Study.
33.
Romero RodríguezJ. M., Ramírez-MontoyaM. S., Buenestado FernándezM., & Lara LaraF. (2023). Use of ChatGPT at university as a tool for complex thinking: Students’ perceived usefulness. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 12, 323–339.
34.
Ruiz-RojasL. I., Salvador-UllauriL., & Acosta-VargasP. (2024). Collaborative working and critical thinking: Adoption of generative artificial intelligence tools in higher education. Sustainability, 16(13), 5367.
35.
SergeevaO. V., ZheltukhinaM. R., ShoustikovaT., TukhvatullinaL. R., DobrokhotovD. A., & KondrashevS. V. (2025). Understanding higher education students’ adoption of generative AI technologies: An empirical investigation using UTAUT2. Contemporary Educational Technology, 17(2), ep571.
36.
ShahzadM. F., XuS., & ZahidH. (2025). Exploring the impact of generative AI-based technologies on learning performance through self-efficacy, fairness and ethics, creativity, and trust in higher education. Education and Information Technologies, 30(3), 3691–3716.
37.
SobelM. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290–321.
38.
SumakulD. T. Y. G., HamiedF. A., & SukyadiD. (2020). Students’ perceptions of the use of AI in a writing class. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 624, 52–57.
39.
SudanT., HansA., & TaggarR. (2024). Transformative learning with ChatGPT: Analyzing adoption trends and implications for business management students in India. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 21(4), 735–772.
40.
TeoT. (2011). Factors influencing teachers’ intention to use technology: Model development and test. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2432–2440.
41.
ThomasF. B. (2022). The role of purposive sampling technique as a tool for informal choices in social sciences in research methods. Just Agriculture, 2(5), 1–8.
42.
TiwariC. K., BhatM. A., KhanS. T., SubramaniamR., & KhanM. A. I. (2024). What drives students toward ChatGPT? An investigation of the factors influencing adoption and usage of ChatGPT. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 21(3), 333–355.
43.
TerblancheN., MolynJ., WilliamsK., & MaritzJ. (2022). Performance matters: Students’ perceptions of artificial intelligence coach adoption factors. Coaching an International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 16(1), 100–114.
44.
VanVoorhisC. W., & MorganB. L. (2007). Understanding power and rules of thumb for determining sample sizes. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 3(2), 43–50.
45.
VenkateshV., & BalaH. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315.
46.
VenkateshV., MorrisM. G., DavisG. B., & DavisF. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
47.
VenkateshV., ThongJ. Y. L., & XuX. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178.
48.
WagholikarS., ChandaniA., AtiqR., PathakM. and WagholikarO. (2023). ChatGPT: Boon or bane: A study from students perspective. 2023 International Conference on Advancement in Computation & Computer Technologies (InCACCT), Gharuan, India, 2023, pp. 207–212, https://doi.org/10.1109/InCACCT57535.2023.10141820
49.
WongJ., & KimJ. (2023). ChatGPT is more likely to be perceived as male than female. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.12564
