Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), a branch of AI capable of producing novel content from human input, is poised to transform various aspects of society. However, the benefits and challenges of GenAI adoption are not equally distributed, contributing to a new layer of digital inequality, the GenAI divide. This study examines the individual factors associated with psychological barriers, GenAI competency, and adoption readiness. Using data from a stratified online survey of 305 participants, the study explores sociodemographic variables (e.g., sex, age, race, education, and income), as well as competency factors (e.g., operational and creative skills) and psychological factors (e.g., attitudes toward AI, GenAI decision reliance, and self-efficacy). Findings reveal that operational skills and comfort with AI were significantly associated with lower anxiety and higher adoption readiness, whereas negative technology attitudes were associated with increased barriers. Furthermore, greater reliance on GenAI for decision-making was associated with lower self-assessed competency, suggesting a compensatory mechanism in which less confident users may increasingly depend on automated recommendations. These results highlight the multi-dimensional nature of the GenAI divide, emphasizing the interplay between individual-level factors and inequality-related outcomes. The study underscores the need for targeted interventions, such as AI literacy programs and supportive digital communities, to address these disparities and promote equitable access to the benefits of GenAI. By identifying key factors associated with GenAI adoption, this research contributes to a deeper understanding of digital inequality in the age of generative AI technologies.
HackerP, EngelA, MauerM. Regulating chatgpt and other large generative AI models. arXiv, 2023.
2.
KshetriN, DwivediYK, DavenportTH, et al.Generative artificial intelligence in marketing: Applications, opportunities, challenges, and research agenda. Int J Inf Manage, 2024; 75:102716; doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102716
3.
PuteikisK, MameniškienėR. Artificial intelligence: Can it help us better grasp the idea of epilepsy? An exploratory dialogue with ChatGPT and DALL·E 2. Epilepsy Behav, 2024; 156:109822; doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2024.109822
4.
FrancisNJ, JonesS, SmithDP. Generative AI in higher education: Balancing innovation and integrity. Br J Biomed Sci, 2024; 81:14048; doi: 10.3389/bjbs.2024.14048
5.
CapraroV, LentschA, AcemogluD, et al.The impact of generative artificial intelligence on socioeconomic inequalities and policy making. PNAS Nexus, 2024; 3(6):pgae191; doi: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae191
6.
BeynenT. The role of students’ assessment literacies in navigating university assessment, GenAI, and academic integrity. Brock Education J Educ Res Practice, 2024; 33(3):30–56.
7.
SengarSS, HasanAB, KumarS, et al.Generative artificial intelligence: A systematic review and applications. Multimed Tools Appl, 2024; 84(21):23661–23700; doi: 10.1007/s11042-024-20016-1
8.
OoiK-B, TanGW-H, Al-EmranM, et al.The potential of generative artificial intelligence across disciplines: Perspectives and future directions. J Comput Inform Syst, 2025; 65(1):76–107; doi: 10.1080/08874417.2023.2261010
9.
DwivediYK, KshetriN, HughesL, et al.“So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. Int J Inf Manage, 2023; 71:102642.
10.
HoudeS, LiaoV, MartinoJ, et al.Business (mis) use cases of generative AI. arXiv, 2020.
11.
ChiuTKF. The impact of Generative AI (GenAI) on practices, policies and research direction in education: A case of ChatGPT and Midjourney. Interactive Learn Environ, 2024; 32(10):6187–6203; doi: 10.1080/10494820.2023.2253861
12.
WiederholdBK. Supporting Teachers and Students: The Role of AI in Shaping the Future of Education. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw, 2025; 28(2):79–81; doi: 10.1089/cyber.2024.0598
13.
RobinsonL, SchulzJ, BlankG, et al.Digital inequalities 2.0: Legacy inequalities in the information age. FM, 2020.
14.
GlencrossS, MasonJ, KatsikitisM, et al.Internet use by people with intellectual disability: Exploring digital inequality—a systematic review. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw, 2021; 24(8):503–520; doi: 10.1089/cyber.2020.0499
15.
LythreatisS, SinghSK, El-KassarA-N. The digital divide: A review and future research agenda. Technol Forecast Soc Change, 2022; 175:121359; doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121359
16.
BentleySV, NaughtinCK, McGrathMJ, et al.The digital divide in action: How experiences of digital technology shape future relationships with artificial intelligence. AI Ethics, 2024; 4(4):901–915; doi: 10.1007/s43681-024-00452-3
17.
NoyS, ZhangW. Experimental evidence on the productivity effects of generative artificial intelligence. Science, 2023; 381(6654):187–192; doi: 10.1126/science.adh2586
18.
LutzC. Digital inequalities in the age of artificial intelligence and big data. Human Behav Emerg Tech, 2019; 1(2):141–148.
19.
Van DijkJA. The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. Sage publications: 2005.
20.
van DijkJAGM. Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics, 2006; 34(4–5):221–235; doi: 10.1016/j.poetic.2006.05.004
21.
YuPK. The algorithmic divide and equality in the age of artificial intelligence. Fla L Rev, 2020; 72:331.
22.
GranA-B, BoothP, BucherT. To be or not to be algorithm aware: A question of a new digital divide? Information Commun Soc, 2021; 24(12):1779–1796; doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2020.1736124
23.
XianX, ChangA, XiangYT, et al.Debate and dilemmas regarding generative AI in mental health care: Scoping review. Interact J Med Res, 2024; 13:e53672; doi: 10.2196/53672
24.
CotterK, ReisdorfBC. Algorithmic knowledge gaps: A new horizon of (digital) inequality. Int J Commun, 2020; 14(21).
25.
RagneddaM, New Digital Inequalities. Algorithms Divide. In: Enhancing Digital Equity: Connecting the Digital Underclass. (RagneddaM., ed.) Springer International Publishing: Cham; 2020; pp. 61–83.
26.
AissaouiN. The digital divide: A literature review and some directions for future research in light of COVID-19. GKMC, 2022; 71(8/9):686–708.
27.
DewanS, RigginsFJ, The Paul Merage School of Business, University of California, Irvine. The digital divide: Current and future research directions. JAIS, 2005; 6(12):298–337.
28.
DiMaggioP, HargittaiE, CelesteC, et al.From unequal access to differentiated use: A literature review and agenda for research on digital inequality. Social Inequality, 2004; 1:355–400.
29.
HargittaiE. Second-level digital divide: Differences in people’s online skills. First Monday, 2000; 7(4).
30.
Van DijkJ, HackerK. The digital divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon. Information Soc, 2003; 19(4):315–326.
31.
CarterL, LiuD, CantrellC. Exploring the intersection of the digital divide and artificial intelligence: A hermeneutic literature review. AIS Trans Hum Comput Interaction, 2020; 12(4):253–275.
32.
WeiK-K, TeoH-H, ChanHC, et al.Conceptualizing and testing a social cognitive model of the digital divide. Inform Syst Res, 2011; 22(1):170–187.
33.
JacksonLA, ZhaoY, KolenicA, et al.Race, gender, and information technology use: The new digital divide. Cyberpsychol Behav, 2008; 11(4):437–442; doi: 10.1089/cpb.2007.0157
34.
MoonSJ, HwangJS, KimJY, et al.Psychometric properties of the internet addiction test: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw, 2018; 21(8):473–484; doi: 10.1089/cyber.2018.0154
35.
ChengC, LiAY. Internet addiction prevalence and quality of (Real) life: A meta-analysis of 31 nations across seven world regions. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw, 2014; 17(12):755–760; doi: 10.1089/cyber.2014.0317
36.
RamirezF. The digital divide in the US criminal justice system. New Media Soc, 2022; 24(2):514–529.
37.
JacksonLA, ZhaoY, WittEA, et al.Self-Concept, Self-Esteem, Gender, Race, and Information Technology Use. Cyberpsychol Behav, 2009; 12(4):437–440; doi: 10.1089/cpb.2008.0286
38.
AcquavitaSP, KrummelDA, TalksA, et al.Assessing the Digital Divide Among Low-Income Perinatal Women: Opportunities for Provision of Health Information and Counseling. Telemed J E Health, 2019; 25(1):48–54; doi: 10.1089/tmj.2017.0292
39.
GoedhartNS, BroerseJE, KattouwR, et al.‘Just having a computer doesn’t make sense’: The digital divide from the perspective of mothers with a low socio-economic position. New Media Soc, 2019; 21(11–12):2347–2365.
40.
MumporezeN, PrielerM. Gender digital divide in Rwanda: A qualitative analysis of socioeconomic factors. Telemat Inform, 2017; 34(7):1285–1293; doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2017.05.014
41.
MarlerW. “You can connect with like, the world!”: Social platforms, survival support, and digital inequalities for people experiencing homelessness. J Comput Mediated Commun, 2022; 27(1):zmab020.
42.
IloanusiN-J, ChunSA. AI Impact on Health Equity for Marginalized, Racial, and Ethnic Minorities. In: Proceedings of the 25th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research. Association for Computing Machinery: Taipei, Taiwan; 2024.
43.
YuanX, Bennett GayleD, KnightT, et al.Adoption of Artificial Intelligence Technologies by Often Marginalized Populations. In: Social Vulnerability to COVID-19: Impacts of Technology Adoption and Information Behavior. (YuanX, WuD, Bennett GayleD, eds.) Springer International Publishing: Cham; 2023; pp. 31–49.
44.
ChanCKY, LeeKKW. 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 Learn Environ, 2023; 10(1):60; doi: 10.1186/s40561-023-00269-3
45.
AnthonyWL, ZhuY, NowerL. The relationship of interactive technology use for entertainment and school performance and engagement: Evidence from a longitudinal study in a nationally representative sample of middle school students in China. Comput Human Behav, 2021; 122:106846; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106846
46.
NidhiD. Artificial intelligence and inequality: examining the social divides created by technological advancements. Int J Innovations Sci Eng Manag, 2024; 3(2):228–236; doi: 10.69968/ijisem.2024v3si2228-236
47.
WachK, DuongCD, EjdysJ, et al.The dark side of generative artificial intelligence: A critical analysis of controversies and risks of ChatGPT. Eber, 2023; 11(2):7–30; doi: 10.15678/EBER.2023.110201
48.
PeppiattC. The Future of Work: Inequality, Artificial Intelligence, and What Can Be Done About It. A Literature Review. ArXiv, 2024.
49.
MannuruNR, ShahriarS, TeelZA, et al.Artificial intelligence in developing countries: The impact of generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies for development. Inform Dev, 2025; 41(3):1036–1054; doi: 10.1177/02666669231200628
50.
Van DeursenAJ, HelsperEJ, EynonR. Development and validation of the Internet Skills Scale (ISS). Inform Commun Soc, 2016; 19(6):804–823.
51.
ShahsavarY, ChoudhuryA. User intentions to use ChatGPT for self-diagnosis and health-related purposes: Cross-sectional survey study. JMIR Hum Factors, 2023; 10(1):e47564.
52.
ChanCKY, ZhouW. Deconstructing student perceptions of generative AI (GenAI) through an expectancy value theory (EVT)-based instrument. arXiv, 2023.
53.
GillathO, AiT, BranickyMS, et al.Attachment and trust in artificial intelligence. Comput Human Behav, 2021; 115:106607.
54.
WangY-Y, WangY-S. Development and validation of an artificial intelligence anxiety scale: An initial application in predicting motivated learning behavior. Interactive Learn Environ, 2022; 30(4):619–634.
55.
GuptaR, NairK, MishraM, et al.Adoption and impacts of generative artificial intelligence: Theoretical underpinnings and research agenda. Int J Inform Manage Data Insights, 2024; 4(1):100232; doi: 10.1016/j.jjimei.2024.100232
56.
HuangZ-X, Gasco-HernandezM, PrasadA, et al.Public libraries and their role in raising awareness about AI and fostering inclusive civic engagement: Current practices and future development. In: Proceedings of the 25th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research. Association for Computing Machinery: Taipei, Taiwan; 2024.
57.
SassMS, MartinB. Revolutionizing Community Engagement and Impact With AI. In: Enhancing the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Online Learning Environments. IGI Global Scientific Publishing: 2025; pp. 323–352.
58.
WeberP, MahmoodF, AhmadiM, et al.Fridolin: Participatory design and evaluation of a nutrition chatbot for older adults. I-Com, 2023; 22(1):33–51; doi: 10.1515/icom-2022-0042
59.
WalkerDM, HefnerJL, FareedN, et al.Exploring the digital divide: Age and race disparities in use of an inpatient portal. Telemed J E Health, 2020; 26(5):603–613.
