The increasing ubiquity of Artificial Intelligence (AI) chatbots across a variety of sectors has sparked a burgeoning interest in deciphering the determinants that govern their adoption and usage. This study aims to examine the pivotal factors that influence the practical usage of the AI chatbot, ChatGPT, among a sample of university students. Leveraging the theoretical framework of planned behavior, the research model scrutinizes the interplay between knowledge application, perceived intelligence, usability, attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, trust, behavioral intention, and actual usage. Data procured from a survey of university students were examined through the lens of structural equation modeling. The outcomes reveal that knowledge application, perceived intelligence, and usability have a positive impact on attitudes towards ChatGPT. Perceived intelligence also influences knowledge application, usability, and trust. Concurrently, attitude and subjective norms notably affect behavioral intention. Contrary to expectations, perceived behavioral control did not significantly influence behavioral intention. Trust emerged as a crucial factor steering behavioral intention, which in turn, positively correlates with the actual usage of ChatGPT. These insights enrich the academic discourse on AI chatbot adoption and provide practical implications for AI developers, educators, and policy makers, striving to enhance user engagement with AI systems in educational contexts.
Agudo-PeregrinaÁFHernández-GarcíaÁPascual-MiguelFJ (2014) Behavioral intention, use behavior and the acceptance of electronic learning systems: Differences between higher education and lifelong learning. Computers in Human Behavior34: 301–314.
2.
AjzenI (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes50(2): 179–211.
3.
Al-EmranMAlQudahAAAbbasiGA, et al. (2023) Determinants of using AI-Based chatbots for knowledge sharing: Evidence from PLS-SEM and fuzzy sets (fsQCA). IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management: 1–15.
4.
Al-EmranMArpaciISalloumSA (2020) An empirical examination of continuous intention to use m-learning: An integrated model. Education and Information Technologies25(4): 2899–2918.
5.
Al-EmranMMezhuyevV (2020) Examining the effect of knowledge management factors on mobile learning adoption through the use of importance-performance map analysis (IPMA). In: HassanienAEShaalanKFM (eds) Tolba, Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Systems and Informatics 2019. Cham: Springer.
6.
Al-EmranMMezhuyevVKamaludinA (2018) Technology acceptance model in M-learning context: A systematic review. Computers & Education125: 389–412.
7.
Al-EmranMTeoT (2020) Do knowledge acquisition and knowledge sharing really affect e-learning adoption? An empirical study. Education and Information Technologies25(3): 1983–1998.
8.
Al-SharafiMAAl-EmranMIranmaneshM, et al. (2022) Understanding the impact of knowledge management factors on the sustainable use of AI-based chatbots for educational purposes using a hybrid SEM-ANN approach. Interactive Learning Environments: 1–20.
9.
AlaiadAZhouL (2014) The determinants of home healthcare robots adoption: An empirical investigation. International Journal Of Medical Informatics83(11): 825–840.
10.
AlaviMLeidnerDE (2001) Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly25(1): 107–136.
AlmaiahMAManM (2016) Empirical investigation to explore factors that achieve high quality of mobile learning system based on students’ perspectives. Engineering Science And Technology, An International Journal19(3): 1314–1320.
13.
AngTWeiSArliD (2021) Social distancing behavior during COVID-19: A TPB perspective. Marketing Intelligence & Planning39(6): 809–824.
14.
AparicioMBacaoFOliveiraT (2017) Grit in the path to e-learning success. Computers in Human Behavior66: 388–399.
15.
AshfaqMYunJYuS, et al. (2020) I, Chatbot: Modeling the determinants of users’ satisfaction and continuance intention of AI-powered service agents. Telematics and Informatics54: 101473.
16.
AwEC-XTanGW-HChamT-H, et al. (2022) Alexa, what's on my shopping list? Transforming customer experience with digital voice assistants. Technological Forecasting and Social Change180: 121711.
17.
BalakrishnanJAbedSSJonesP (2022) The role of meta-UTAUT factors, perceived anthropomorphism, perceived intelligence, and social self-efficacy in chatbot-based services?Technological Forecasting and Social Change180: 121692.
18.
BalakrishnanJDwivediYK (2021) Conversational commerce: Entering the next stage of AI-powered digital assistants. Annals of Operations Research: 1–35.
19.
BelancheDCasalóLVFlaviánC (2019) Artificial intelligence in FinTech: Understanding robo-advisors adoption among customers. Industrial Management & Data Systems119(7): 1411–1430.
20.
BhattacherjeeA (2001) Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly25(3): 351–370.
21.
BorsciSMaliziaASchmettowM, et al. (2022) The chatbot usability scale: The design and pilot of a usability scale for interaction with AI-based conversational agents. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing26(1): 95–119.
22.
BrandtzaegPBFølstadA (2017). Why people use chatbots. Internet Science: 4th International Conference, INSCI 2017, Thessaloniki, Greece, November 22–24, 2017, Proceedings 4.
23.
BrillTMMunozLMillerRJ (2019) Siri, Alexa, and other digital assistants: A study of customer satisfaction with artificial intelligence applications. Journal of Marketing Management35(15–16): 1401–1436.
24.
BruceEShurongZYingD, et al. (2023) The effect of digital marketing adoption on SMEs sustainable growth: Empirical evidence from Ghana. Sustainability15(6): 4760. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/6/4760
25.
BubaAKIbrahimOShehzadHMF (2022) Behavioral intention model for green information technology adoption in Nigerian manufacturing industries. Aslib Journal of Information Management74(1): 158–180.
26.
CastelfranchiCFalconeR (2010) Trust theory: A socio-cognitive and computational model. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
27.
ChaiCSWangXXuC (2020) An extended theory of planned behavior for the modelling of Chinese secondary school students’ intention to learn artificial intelligence. Mathematics8(11): 2089.
28.
ChangI-CShihY-SKuoK-M (2022) Why would you use medical chatbots? Interview and survey. International Journal of Medical Informatics165: 104827.
29.
ChaoC-M (2019) Factors determining the behavioral intention to use mobile learning: An application and extension of the UTAUT model. Frontiers in Psychology10: 1652.
30.
ChungMKoEJoungH, et al. (2020) Chatbot e-service and customer satisfaction regarding luxury brands. Journal of Business Research117: 587–595.
31.
CottonDRECottonPAShipwayJR (2023) Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International: 1–12.
32.
DavisFD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly13(3): 319–340.
33.
De CiccoRIacobucciSAquinoA, et al. (2022)Understanding Users’ Acceptance of Chatbots: An Extended TAM Approach3–22Chatbot Research and Design. CONVERSATIONS 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. vol. 13171Cham: Springer.
34.
DerantyJ-PCorbinT (2022) Artificial intelligence and work: a critical review of recent research from the social sciences. AI & Society.
35.
DevlinJChangM.-WLeeK, et al. (2018). Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805.
36.
DinevTHartP (2006) An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions. Information Systems Research17(1): 61–80.
37.
DubeyPSahuKK (2021) Students’ perceived benefits, adoption intention and satisfaction to technology-enhanced learning: Examining the relationships. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning14(3): 310–328.
38.
DwivediYKKshetriNHughesL, et al. (2023) 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 Management71: 102642.
39.
FarrokhniaMBanihashemSKNorooziO, et al. (2023) A SWOT analysis of ChatGPT: Implications for educational practice and research. Innovations in Education and Teaching International: 1–15.
40.
FølstadANordheimCBBjørkliCA (2018) What makes users trust a chatbot for customer service? An exploratory interview study. In: BodrunovaSS (ed) Internet Science. Cham: Springer, 194–208.
41.
FornellCLarckerDF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research18(1): 39–50.
42.
GatzioufaPSaprikisV (2022) A literature review on users’ behavioral intention toward chatbots’ adoption. Applied Computing and Informatics: ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print).
43.
GefenDKarahannaEStraubDW (2003) Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS Quarterly27(1): 51–90.
44.
HairJHollingsworthCLRandolphAB, et al. (2017) An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Industrial Management & Data Systems117(3): 442–458.
45.
HairJFHultGTMRingleCM, et al. (2021) A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
46.
HairJFRingleCMSarstedtM (2011) PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice19(2): 139–152.
47.
HairJFRisherJJSarstedtM, et al. (2019) When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review31(1): 2–24.
48.
HanSYangH (2018) Understanding adoption of intelligent personal assistants: A parasocial relationship perspective. Industrial Management & Data Systems118(3): 618–636.
49.
HansenJMSaridakisGBensonV (2018) Risk, trust, and the interaction of perceived ease of use and behavioral control in predicting consumers’ use of social media for transactions. Computers in Human Behavior80: 197–206.
50.
HenselerJRingleCMSarstedtM (2015) A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal Of The Academy Of Marketing Science43: 115–135.
51.
HewKFHuangWDuJ, et al. (2021). Using chatbots in flipped learning online sessions: perceived usefulness and ease of use. In: LiRCheungSKSIwasakiC, et al (eds) Blended Learning: Re-thinking and Re-defining the Learning Process.Cham: Springer, 164–175.
52.
HoSMOcasio-VelázquezMBoothC (2017) Trust or consequences? Causal effects of perceived risk and subjective norms on cloud technology adoption. Computers & Security70: 581–595.
53.
HoodaAGuptaPJeyarajA, et al. (2022) The effects of trust on behavioral intention and use behavior within e-government contexts. International Journal of Information Management67: 102553.
54.
HuangM-HRustRT (2018) Artificial intelligence in service. Journal Of Service Research21(2): 155–172.
55.
HuangY-C (2023) Integrated concepts of the UTAUT and TPB in virtual reality behavioral intention. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services70: 103127.
56.
JarrahiMHAskayDEshraghiA, et al. (2023) Artificial intelligence and knowledge management: A partnership between human and AI. Business Horizons66(1): 87–99.
57.
JarrahiMHLutzCNewlandsG (2022) Artificial intelligence, human intelligence and hybrid intelligence based on mutual augmentation. Big Data & Society9(2): 20539517221142824.
58.
JohnsonSBKingAJWarnerEL, et al. (2023) Using ChatGPT to evaluate cancer myths and misconceptions: Artificial intelligence and cancer information. JNCI Cancer Spectrum7(2): pkad015.
Kai-ming AuAEnderwickP (2000). A cognitive model on attitude towards technology adoption. Journal of Managerial Psychology15(4): 266–282.
61.
KhanRAQudrat-UllahH (2021) Technology adoption theories and models. In Adoption of LMS in Higher Educational Institutions of the Middle East. Cham, Zug: Springer International Publishing, 27–48.
62.
KimSYSchmittBHThalmannNM (2019) Eliza in the uncanny valley: Anthropomorphizing consumer robots increases their perceived warmth but decreases liking. Marketing Letters30: 1–12.
63.
KockN. (2015). WarpPLS 5.0 user manual. Laredo, TX: ScriptWarp Systems.
64.
LaakasuoMPalomäkiJKöbisN (2021) Moral uncanny valley: A robot’s appearance moderates how its decisions are judged. International Journal of Social Robotics13(7): 1679–1688.
65.
LaiYSaabNAdmiraalW (2022) University students’ use of mobile technology in self-directed language learning: Using the integrative model of behavior prediction. Computers & Education179: 104413.
66.
LauferRSWolfeM (1977) Privacy as a concept and a social issue: A multidimensional developmental theory. Journal of Social Issues33(3): 22–42.
LedroCNosellaAVinelliA (2022) Artificial intelligence in customer relationship management: Literature review and future research directions. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing37(13): 48–63.
69.
LinDCrabtreeJDilloI, et al. (2020) The TRUST principles for digital repositories. Scientific Data7(1): 144.
70.
LoC K (2023) What is the impact of ChatGPT on education? A rapid review of the literature. Education Sciences13(4): 410. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/13/4/410
71.
LundBDWangTMannuruNR, et al. (2023) ChatGPT and a new academic reality: Artificial Intelligence-written research papers and the ethics of the large language models in scholarly publishing. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology74(5): 570–581.
72.
McGinnCCullinanMFOtubelaM, et al. (2019) Design of a terrain adaptive wheeled robot for human-orientated environments. Autonomous Robots43: 63–78.
73.
McKnightD. (2005). Trust in Information Technology. In (pp. 329–331).
74.
McKnightDHChoudhuryVKacmarC (2002) The impact of initial consumer trust on intentions to transact with a web site: A trust building model. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems11(3-4): 297–323.
75.
McLeanGOsei-FrimpongK (2019) Hey Alexa… examine the variables influencing the use of artificial intelligent in-home voice assistants. Computers in Human Behavior99: 28–37.
76.
MentzasGLepeniotiKBousdekisA, et al. (2021). Data-driven collaborative human-AI decision making. In: DennehyDGrivaAPouloudiN, et al (eds) Responsible AI and Analytics for an Ethical and Inclusive Digitized Society. Cham: Springer, 120–131.
77.
MishraAShuklaASharmaSK (2022) Psychological determinants of users’ adoption and word-of-mouth recommendations of smart voice assistants. International Journal of Information Management67: 102413.
78.
Mohd RahimNIIahadNYusofAF, et al. (2022). AI-Based Chatbots adoption model for higher-education institutions: A hybrid PLS-SEM-neural network modelling approach. Sustainability14(19): 12726.
79.
MokhtarSSMSalimonMG (2022). SMEs’ adoption of artificial intelligence-chatbots for marketing communication: A conceptual framework for an emerging economy. In Marketing Communications and Brand Development in Emerging Markets Volume II: Insights for a Changing World. Cham: Springer. 25–53.
80.
Morris, Michael G and Viswanath Venkatesh. (2000). Age differences in technology adoption decisions: Implications for a changing work force. Personnel psychology, 53(2): 375–403.
81.
MoussawiSKoufarisM (2019) Perceived intelligence and perceived anthropomorphism of personal intelligent agents: Scale development and validation.
82.
MoussawiSKoufarisMBenbunan-FichR (2021) How perceptions of intelligence and anthropomorphism affect adoption of personal intelligent agents. Electronic Markets31(2): 343–364.
83.
NadarzynskiTMilesOCowieA, et al. (2019) Acceptability of artificial intelligence (AI)-led chatbot services in healthcare: A mixed-methods study. Digital Health5: 2055207619871808.
84.
NguyenDMChiuY-THLeHD (2021). Determinants of continuance Intention towards Banks’ chatbot services in Vietnam: A necessity for sustainable development. Sustainability13(14): 7625. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/14/7625
85.
NguyenQNTaAPrybutokV (2019) An integrated model of voice-user interface continuance intention: The gender effect. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction35(15): 1362–1377.
PalDBabakerkhellMDZhangX (2021) Exploring the Determinants of Users’ Continuance Usage Intention of Smart Voice Assistants. Ieee Access.
88.
PatilPTamilmaniKRanaNP, et al. (2020) Understanding consumer adoption of mobile payment in India: Extending meta-UTAUT model with personal innovativeness, anxiety, trust, and grievance redressal. International Journal of Information Management54: 102144.
89.
PetiscaSDiasJPaivaA (2015) More social and emotional behaviour may lead to poorer perceptions of a social robot. Social Robotics: 7th International Conference, ICSR 2015, Paris, France, October 26-30, 2015, Proceedings 7.
90.
PetterSDeLoneWMcLeanE (2008) Measuring information systems success: Models, dimensions, measures, and interrelationships. European Journal of Information Systems17(3): 236–263.
91.
PillaiRSivathanuB (2020) Adoption of AI-based chatbots for hospitality and tourism. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management32(10): 3199–3226.
92.
PodsakoffPMMacKenzieMScottB, et al. (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology885(879): 10–1037.
93.
RachmawatiIKBukhoriMNuryantiF, et al. (2020) Collaboration Technology Acceptance Model, subjective norms and personal innovations on buying interest online. International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology5(11): 115–122.
94.
RadfordAWuJChildR, et al. (2019) Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI Blog1(8): 9.
95.
RafiqFDograNAdilM, et al. (2022) Examining consumer’s intention to adopt AI-chatbots in tourism using partial least squares structural equation modeling method. Mathematics10(13): 2190.
96.
ReevesBNassC (1996) The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people. Cambridge, UK, 10, 236605.
97.
RingleCMWendeSBeckerJ.-M (2015) “SmartPLS 3. Boenningstedt: SmartPLS GmbH, 31 2015”, Available online: http://www.smartpls.com (accessed on 20 October 2020).
98.
SanduNGideE (2019) Adoption of AI-Chatbots to enhance student learning experience in higher education in India. 2019 18th International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET).
99.
SarkerIH (2022) AI-Based modeling: Techniques, applications and research issues towards automation, intelligent and smart systems. SN Computer Science3(2): 158.
100.
SciarelliMPriscoAGheithMH, et al. (2022) Factors affecting the adoption of blockchain technology in innovative Italian companies: An extended TAM approach. Journal of Strategy and Management15(3): 495–507.
101.
SiauKLYangY (2017) Impact of artificial intelligence, robotics, and machine learning on sales and marketing.
102.
SladeELDwivediYKPiercyNC, et al. (2015) Modeling consumers’ adoption intentions of remote mobile payments in the United Kingdom: Extending UTAUT with innovativeness, risk, and trust. Psychology & Marketing32(8): 860–873.
103.
SöderlundM (2022) Service robots with (perceived) theory of mind: An examination of humans’ reactions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services67: 102999.
104.
SongHGJoH (2023) Understanding the continuance intention of omnichannel: Combining TAM and TPB. Sustainability15(4): 3039.
SullivanMKellyAMcLaughlanP (2023) ChatGPT in higher education: Considerations for academic integrity and student learning. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching6(1)): 1–10.
107.
SunGHHoelscherSH (2023) The ChatGPT storm and what faculty can do. Nurse Educator48(3): 119–124.
108.
SunSLawRSchuckertM (2020) Mediating effects of attitude, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control for mobile payment-based hotel reservations. International Journal of Hospitality Management84: 102331.
109.
SundarSSBellurSOhJ, et al. (2014) User experience of on-screen interaction techniques: An experimental investigation of clicking, sliding, zooming, hovering, dragging, and flipping. Human–Computer Interaction29(2): 109–152.
110.
TeoT (2009) Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers. Computers & Education52(2): 302–312.
111.
TliliAShehataBAdarkwahMA, et al. (2023) What if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a case study of using chatbots in education. Smart Learning Environments10(1): 1–24.
112.
TsaiH-TChienJ-LTsaiM-T (2014) The influences of system usability and user satisfaction on continued internet banking services usage intention: Empirical evidence from Taiwan. Electronic Commerce Research14(2): 137–169.
113.
TussyadiahIPParkS (2018) Consumer evaluation of hotel service robots. Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2018: Proceedings of the International Conference in Jönköping, Sweden, January 24-26, 2018.
114.
VenkateshVDavisFD (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science46(2): 186–204.
115.
VenkateshVMorrisMGDavisGB, et al. (2003) User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly27(3): 425–478.
116.
WangSWNgamsiriudomWHsiehC-H (2015) Trust disposition, trust antecedents, trust, and behavioral intention. The Service Industries Journal35(10): 555–572.
117.
WilliamsLJHartmanNCavazotteF (2010) Method variance and marker variables: A review and comprehensive CFA marker technique. Organizational Research Methods13(3): 477–514.
118.
YanCSiddikABAkterN, et al. (2023) Factors influencing the adoption intention of using mobile financial service during the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of FinTech. Environmental Science and Pollution Research30(22): 61271–61289.
119.
YoonJYuH (2022) Impact of customer experience on attitude and utilization intention of a restaurant-menu curation chatbot service. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology13(3): 527–541.
120.
ZhangJJYFølstadABjørkliCA (2023) Organizational factors affecting successful implementation of chatbots for customer service. Journal of Internet Commerce22(1): 122–156.
