This study addresses the gap in understanding graduate students’ sustained engagement behavior (SEB) with generative artificial intelligence (GAI) by integrating the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Expectation Confirmation Theory (ECT), and Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) into a comprehensive embedding model. It introduces the Technology Readiness Index for Innovation (TRII) and Perception-Oriented Learning Style (POLS) as key factors, analyzed through Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) and Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA). Data from 862 graduate students in China were tested for reliability and validity. SEM results demonstrated that TRII significantly influences usage expectations (UE), effort expectancy (EE), performance expectancy (PE), and SEB, with cognitive and affective factors mediating these relationships. QCA revealed multiple causal pathways leading to high SEB, highlighting the principle of equifinality. The integration of SEM and QCA provided insights into dual pathways—implicit expectation development and cognitive system processing—that shape GAI adoption, offering practical implications for effective implementation in higher education.
AikenL. S.WestS. G.RenoR. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.
2.
AiniQ.ManonggaD.RahardjaU.SembiringI.LiY. M. (2024). Understanding behavioral intention to use of air quality monitoring solutions with emphasis on technology readiness. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2024.2357860
3.
AjzenI. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall.
AlietoE.Abequibel-EncarnacionB.EstigoyE.BalasaK.EijansantosA.Torres-ToukoumidisA. (2024). Teaching inside a digital classroom: A quantitative analysis of attitude, technological competence and access among teachers across subject disciplines. Heliyon, 10(2), Article e24282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24282
6.
Al-RahmiW. M.YahayaN.AlamriM. M.AlyoussefI. Y.Al-RahmiA. M.KaminY. B. (2019). Integrating innovation diffusion theory with technology acceptance model: Supporting students’ attitude towards using a massive open online courses (MOOCs) systems. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(8), 1380–1392. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1629599
7.
AnantrasirichaiN.BullD. (2022). Artificial intelligence in the creative industries: A review. Artificial Intelligence Review, 55(1), 589–656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-021-10039-7
8.
AnhN. T. M.HoaL. T. K.ThaoL. P.NhiD. A.LongN. T.TrucN. T.Ngoc XuanV. (2024). The effect of technology readiness on adopting artificial intelligence in accounting and auditing in Vietnam. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 17(1), 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm17010027
9.
Ariyo OkaiyetoS.BaiJ.XiaoH. (2023). Generative AI in education: To embrace it or not?International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, 16(3), 285–286. https://doi.org/10.25165/j.ijabe.20231603.8486
10.
AsratieM. G.WaleB. D.AyletY. T. (2023). Effects of using educational technology tools to enhance EFL students’ speaking performance. Education and Information Technologies, 28(8), 10031–10051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100172
11.
BayagaA.du PlessisA. (2024). Ramifications of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) among developing countries’ higher education staffs. Education and Information Technologies, 29(8), 9689–9714. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12194-6
12.
BhattacherjeeA. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 351–370. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250921
13.
BhattacherjeeA.PremkumarG. (2004). Understanding changes in belief and attitude toward information technology usage: A theoretical model and longitudinal test. MIS Quarterly, 28(2), 229–254. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148634
14.
BohnerG.MoskowitzG. B.ChaikenS. (1995). The interplay of heuristic and systematic processing of social information. European Review of Social Psychology, 6(1), 33–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/1479277944300000
15.
ByrneB. M. (2013). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203807644
CheungG. W.Cooper-ThomasH. D.LauR. S.WangL. C. (2021). Testing moderation in business and psychological studies with latent moderated structural equations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 36(6), 1009–1033. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-020-09717-0
18.
ChiuT. K. (2024). The impact of generative AI (GenAI) on practices, policies and research direction in education: A case of ChatGPT and midjourney. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(10), 6187–6203. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2253861
19.
Christopher WestlandJ. (2010). Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9(6), 476–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2010.07.003
20.
CimbaljevićM.Demirović BajramiD.KovačićS.PavlukovićV.StankovU.VujičićM. (2024). Employees' technology adoption in the context of smart tourism development: The role of technological acceptance and technological readiness. European Journal of Innovation Management, 27(8), 2457–2482. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejim-09-2022-0516
21.
CreswellJ. W.CreswellJ. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.
22.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
23.
DemirtaşZ.ÇaçanH.UslukayaA. (2023). Perceived teacher informal relationship scale: A scale development and measurement invariance study. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 10(1), 250–261. https://doi.org/10.33200/ijcer.1273967
DlaminiZ.FranciesF. Z.HullR.MarimaR. (2020). Artificial intelligence (AI) and big data in cancer and precision oncology. Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal, 18, 2300–2311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csbj.2020.08.019
EvansJ. S. B.StanovichK. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460685
28.
FakhrHosseiniS.ChanK.LeeC.JeonM.SonH.RudnikJ.CoughlinJ. (2024). User adoption of intelligent environments: A review of technology adoption models, challenges, and prospects. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 40(4), 986–998. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2118851
FelderR. M.SilvermanL. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education, 78(7), 674–681.
31.
FishbeinM.AjzenI. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley.
32.
FissP. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393–420. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.60263120
33.
FornellC.LarckerD. 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
34.
GengS.LawK. M.NiuB. (2019). Investigating self-directed learning and technology readiness in blending learning environment. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 17–22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0147-0
35.
GonzalesC.PernyP.DubusJ. P. (2011). Decision making with multiple objectives using GAI networks. Artificial Intelligence, 175(7-8), 1153–1179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2010.11.020
36.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff 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
37.
ImariI.WardanaE. T. D. R. W.MintartiS.HaryonoA. (2020). The effect of attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control on students’ intention to choose sharia economics study programs. Management Science Letters, 10(13), 3119–3126. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2020.5.011
38.
JiangH.GaiJ.ZhaoS.ChaudhryP. E.ChaudhryS. S. (2022). Applications and development of artificial intelligence system from the perspective of system science: A bibliometric review. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 39(3), 361–378. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2865
39.
JohnstonH.WellsR. F.ShanksE. M.BoeyT.ParsonsB. N. (2024). Student perspectives on the use of generative artificial intelligence technologies in higher education. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 20(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-024-00149-4
40.
KahnemanD. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.
41.
KaushikM. K.AgrawalD. (2021). Influence of technology readiness in adoption of e-learning. International Journal of Educational Management, 35(2), 483–495. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-04-2020-0216
42.
KhosoA. K.HonggangW.DaraziM. A. (2025). Empowering creativity and engagement: The impact of generative artificial intelligence usage on Chines EFL students' language learning experience. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 18, Article 100627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2025.100627
43.
LaiC. L.TuY. F. (2024). Roles, strategies, and research issues of generative AI in the mobile learning era. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 18(4), 516–537. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMLO.2024.141836
44.
LatifS.CuayáhuitlH.PervezF.ShamshadF.AliH. S.CambriaE. (2023). A survey on deep reinforcement learning for audio-based applications. Artificial Intelligence Review, 56(3), 2193–2240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-022-10224-2
45.
LeeJ. C.TangY.JiangS. (2023). Understanding continuance intention of artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled mobile banking applications: An extension of AI characteristics to an expectation confirmation model. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 333–412. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01845-1
46.
LiW.YangY.ChengL.MengX.ZhangF.JiY. (2023). Understanding adoption intent and behavioral response to shared electric bicycles: A survey in ningbo, China. Transportation Research Record, 2677(1), 1311–1326. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981221103874
47.
MahmoodA.ImranM.AdilK. (2023). Modeling individual beliefs to transfigure technology readiness into technology acceptance in financial institutions. Sage Open, 13(1), Article 21582440221149718. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221149718
48.
MantelloP.HoM. T.NguyenM. H.VuongQ. H. (2023). Machines that feel: Behavioral determinants of attitude towards affect recognition technology—upgrading technology acceptance theory with the mindsponge model. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 430–516. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01837-1
MuthénB.MuthénL. (2017). Mplus. In van der LindenW. J. (Ed.), Handbook of item response theory (pp. 507–518). Chapman and Hall/CRC.
51.
NaseemS.AlhudhaifA.AnwarM.QureshiK. N.JeonG. (2023). Artificial general intelligence-based rational behavior detection using cognitive correlates for tracking online harms. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 27(1), 119–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-022-01665-1
52.
NigatuA. M.YilmaT. M.GezieL. D.GebrewoldY.GullslettM. K.MengisteS. A.TilahunB. (2024). Health professionals’ technology readiness on the acceptance of teleradiology in the Amhara regional state public hospitals, northwest Ethiopia: Using technology readiness acceptance model (TRAM). PLoS One, 19(3), Article e0301021. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301021
53.
OliverR. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378001700405
54.
OoiK. B.TanG. W. H.Al-EmranM.Al-SharafiM. A.CapatinaA.ChakrabortyA.DwivediY. K.HuangT. L.KarA. K.LeeV. H.LohX. M.MicuA.MikalefP.MogajiE.PandeyN.RamanR.RanaN. P.SarkerP.SharmaA.…WongL. W. (2025). The potential of generative artificial intelligence across disciplines: Perspectives and future directions. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 65(1), 76–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2023.2261010
55.
ParasuramanA. (2000). Technology readiness index (TRI) a multiple-item scale to measure readiness to embrace new technologies. Journal of Service Research, 2(4), 307–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/109467050024001
56.
ParasuramanA.ColbyC. L. (2015). An updated and streamlined technology readiness index: Tri 2.0. Journal of Service Research, 18(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670514539730
57.
PettyR. E. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Academic Press.
58.
PitelisC. N.TeeceD. J.YangH. (2024). Dynamic capabilities and mne global strategy: A systematic literature review‐based novel conceptual framework. Journal of Management Studies, 61(7), 3295–3326. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13021
59.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
60.
QuY.TanM. X. Y.WangJ. (2024). Disciplinary differences in undergraduate students' engagement with generative artificial intelligence. Smart Learning Environments, 11(1), 51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-024-00341-6
61.
RaginC. C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. University of California Press.
62.
RaginC. C. (2008). Measurement versus calibration: A set-theoretic approach. In Box-SteffensmeierJ. M.BradyH. E.CollierD. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political methodology (pp. 1–10). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286546.003.008
63.
RaginC. C. (2009). Reflections on casing and case-oriented research. In ByrneD.RaginC. C. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of case-based methods (pp. 522–534). Sage Publications.
64.
RihouxB.RaginC. C. (Eds.), (2009). Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques. Sage.
65.
RizkallaN.TannadyH.BernandoR. (2024). Analysis of the influence of performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and attitude toward behavior on intention to adopt live.on. Multidisciplinary Reviews, 6, 2023spe017. https://doi.org/10.31893/multirev.2023spe017
66.
SchlagweinD.WillcocksL. (2023). ChatGPT et al.’: The ethics of using (generative) artificial intelligence in research and science. Journal of Information Technology, 38(3), 232–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/02683962231200411
67.
SchneiderC. Q.WagemannC. (2012). Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences: A guide to qualitative comparative analysis. Cambridge University Press.
68.
ShahT. R.ShahT. T.JainA. (2021). The role of technology readiness in students' perception and behaviour towards e-learning technologies. International Journal of Learning Technology, 16(3), 197–224. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLT.2021.119468
69.
SilveiraH. P. D.AlbergariaM.FarneziP. (2024). Motivated or inhibited? An analysis of the predisposition to adopt technological implements in personal financial planning. Brazilian Business Review, 21(4), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.15728/bbr.2022.1317.en
70.
SonM.HanK. (2011). Beyond the technology adoption: Technology readiness effects on post-adoption behavior. Journal of Business Research, 64(11), 1178–1182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.06.019
StraubD. W. (1994). The effect of culture on IT diffusion: E-Mail and FAX in Japan and the US. Information Systems Research, 5(1), 23–47. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.5.1.23
73.
TangC.DingX. (2014). Graduate students’ creative professional virtual community behaviors and their creativity. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 464–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.055
74.
TangY. M.ChenP. C.LawK. M.WuC. H.LauY. Y.GuanJ.HeD.HoG. T. S. (2021). Comparative analysis of student’s live online learning readiness during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic in the higher education sector. Computers & Education, 168, Article 104211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104211
75.
Tavera-MesíasJ. F.Van KlytonA.CollazosA. Z. (2023). Technology readiness, mobile payments and gender—a reflective-formative second order approach. Behaviour & Information Technology, 42(7), 1005–1023. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2022.2054729
76.
ThongJ. Y. L.HongS.-J.TamK. Y. (2006). The effects of post-adoption beliefs on the expectation-confirmation model for information technology continuance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(9), 799–810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.05.001
77.
TranH. T. T.NguyenN. T.TangT. T. (2023). Influences of subjective norms on teachers’ intention to use social media in working. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(1), ep400. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/12659
78.
TuY. F. (2024). Roles and functionalities of ChatGPT for students with different growth mindsets. Educational Technology & Society, 27(1), 198–214.
79.
TuY. F.HwangG. J. (2023). University students’ conceptions of ChatGPT-supported learning: A drawing and epistemic network analysis. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(10), 6790–6814. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2286370
VenkateshV.DavisF. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
82.
VenkateshV.MorrisM. G.DavisG. B.DavisF. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
83.
VenkateshV.ThongJ. Y.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. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412
84.
Villanueva-FloresM.Hernández-RoqueD.Díaz-FernándezM.Bornay-BarrachinaM. (2023). Exploring the mediation role of perceived behavioural control and subjective norms in the relationship between psychological capital and entrepreneurial intention of university students. International Journal of Management in Education, 21(3), Article 100865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100865
85.
WangS.HuT.XiaoH.LiY.ZhangC.NingH.ZhuR.LiZ.YeX. (2024). GPT, large language models (LLMs) and generative artificial intelligence (GAI) models in geospatial science: A systematic review. International Journal of Digital Earth, 17(1), Article 2353122. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538947.2024.2353122
86.
WilliamsM. D.RanaN. P.DwivediY. K. (2015). The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): A literature review. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 28(3), 443–488. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-09-2014-0088
87.
WoodD.MossS. H. (2024). Evaluating the impact of students' generative AI use in educational contexts. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 17(2), 152–167. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-06-2024-0151
88.
YanH.ZhangH.SuS.LamJ. F.WeiX. (2022). Exploring the online gamified learning intentions of college students: A technology-learning behavior acceptance model. Applied Sciences, 12(24), Article 12966. https://doi.org/10.3390/app122412966
89.
ZhangH.LiuY.SuS. (2024). Schrödinger's Cat—parallel experiences: Exploring the underlying mechanisms of undergraduates' engagement and perception in online learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, Article 1354641. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1354641
ZouM.HuangL. (2023). To use or not to use? Understanding doctoral students’ acceptance of ChatGPT in writing through technology acceptance model. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1259531. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1259531
