Research Article

Understanding higher education students’ adoption of generative AI technologies: An empirical investigation using UTAUT2

Olga V. Sergeeva 1 , Marina R. Zheltukhina 2 * , Tatyana Shoustikova 3 , Leysan R. Tukhvatullina 4 , Denis A. Dobrokhotov 5 , Sergey V. Kondrashev 5
More Detail
1 Kuban State University, Krasnodar, RUSSIA2 Scientific and Educational Center «Person in Communication», Pyatigorsk State University, Pyatigorsk, RUSSIA3 Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba, Moscow, RUSSIA4 Kazan (Volga region) Federal University, Kazan, RUSSIA5 I. M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Moscow, RUSSIA* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Educational Technology, 17(2), April 2025, ep571, https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/16039
Published Online: 24 February 2025, Published: 01 April 2025
OPEN ACCESS   17738 Views   11818 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) technologies are gaining traction in higher education, offering potential benefits such as personalized learning support and enhanced productivity. However, successful integration requires understanding the factors influencing students’ adoption of these emerging tools. This study investigates the determinants shaping higher education students’ adoption of GAI through the lens of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology 2 framework. Data was collected from Pyatigorsk State University students and analyzed using structural equation modeling. The findings reveal habit (HB) as the most influential predictor of GAI adoption among students, followed by performance expectancy. Hedonic motivation, social influence (SI), and price value positively influenced behavioral intention (BI) to use these technologies. Surprisingly, facilitating conditions (FCs) exhibited a negative effect on BI, suggesting potential gaps in support systems. The study identifies no significant gender differences in the underlying factors driving adoption. Based on the results, recommendations are provided to foster HB formation, communicate benefits, enhance hedonic appeal, leverage SI, address price concerns, and strengthen FCs. Potential limitations include the cross-sectional nature of the data, geographic constraints, reliance on self-reported measures, and the lack of consideration for individual differences as moderators. This research contributes to the growing body of knowledge on GAI adoption in educational contexts, offering insights to guide higher education institutions in responsibly integrating these innovative tools while addressing student needs and promoting improved learning outcomes.
Keywords: UTAUT2, generative AI, higher education, adoption of AI, hedonic motivation, habit

CITATION (APA)

Sergeeva, O. V., Zheltukhina, M. R., Shoustikova, T., Tukhvatullina, L. R., Dobrokhotov, D. A., & Kondrashev, S. V. (2025). Understanding higher education students’ adoption of generative AI technologies: An empirical investigation using UTAUT2. Contemporary Educational Technology, 17(2), ep571. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/16039

REFERENCES

  1. Abbad, M. M. M. (2021). Using the UTAUT model to understand students’ usage of e-learning systems in developing countries. Education and Information Technologies, 26(6), 7205–7224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10573-5
  2. Adelana, O. P., Ayanwale, M. A., Ishola, A. M., Oladejo, A. I., & Adewuyi, H. O. (2023). Exploring pre-service teachers’ intention to use virtual reality: A mixed method approach. Computers & Education: X Reality, 3, Article 100045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cexr.2023.100045
  3. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
  4. Akdim, K., Casaló, L. V., & Flavián, C. (2022). The role of utilitarian and hedonic aspects in the continuance intention to use social mobile apps. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 66, Article 102888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102888
  5. Alasadi, E. A., & Baiz, C. R. (2023). Generative AI in education and research: Opportunities, concerns, and solutions. Journal of Chemical Education, 100(8), 2965–2971. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00323
  6. Al-Azawei, A., & Alowayr, A. (2020). Predicting the intention to use and hedonic motivation for mobile learning: A comparative study in two Middle Eastern countries. Technology in Society, 62, Article 101325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101325
  7. Anantrasirichai, N., & Bull, D. (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. Baabdullah, A. M. (2018). Consumer adoption of mobile social network games (M-SNGs) in Saudi Arabia: The role of social influence, hedonic motivation and trust. Technology in Society, 53, 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.01.004
  9. Baskara, FX. R., Puri, A. D., & Wardhani, A. R. (2023). ChatGPT and the pedagogical challenge: Unveiling the impact on early-career academics in higher education. Indonesian Journal on Learning and Advanced Education, 5(3), 311–322. https://doi.org/10.23917/ijolae.v5i3.22966
  10. Billieux, J., Van Der Linden, M., & Rochat, L. (2008). The role of impulsivity in actual and problematic use of the mobile phone. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(9), 1195–1210. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1429
  11. Bouteraa, M., Bin-Nashwan, S. A., Al-Daihani, M., Dirie, K. A., Benlahcene, A., Sadallah, M., Zaki, H. O., Lada, S., Ansar, R., Fook, L. M., & Chekima, B. (2024). Understanding the diffusion of AI-generative (ChatGPT) in higher education: Does students’ integrity matter? Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 14, Article 100402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2024.100402
  12. Bozkurt, A. (2023). Unleashing the potential of generative AI, conversational agents and chatbots in educational praxis: A systematic review and bibliometric analysis of GenAI in education. Open Praxis, 15(4), 261–270. https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.15.4.609
  13. Burkhard, M. (2022). Student perceptions of AI-powered writing tools: Towards individualized teaching strategies. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age (pp. 73–81).
  14. Camilleri, M. A. (2024). Factors affecting performance expectancy and intentions to use ChatGPT: Using SmartPLS to advance an information technology acceptance framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 201, Article 123247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123247
  15. Chan, C. K. Y., & Hu, W. (2023). Students’ voices on generative AI: perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20, Article 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8
  16. Chan, C. K. Y., & Lee, K. K. W. (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, Article 60. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-023-00269-3
  17. Chung, J. Y., & Jeong, S.-H. (2024). Exploring the perceptions of Chinese pre-service teachers on the integration of generative AI in English language teaching: Benefits, challenges, and educational implications. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 14(4), Article e202457. https://doi.org/10.30935/ojcmt/15266
  18. Cubric, M. (2020). Drivers, barriers and social considerations for AI adoption in business and management: A tertiary study. Technology in Society, 62, Article 101257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101257
  19. Damiano, A. D., Lauría, E. J. M., Sarmiento, C., & Zhao, N. (2024). Early perceptions of teaching and learning using generative AI in higher education. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 52(3), 346–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472395241233290
  20. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–339. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
  21. Derevyanko, N., & Zalevska, O. (2023). Comparative analysis of neural networks Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, and DALL-E and ways of their implementation in the educational process of students of design specialties. Scientific Bulletin of Mukachevo State University Series “Pedagogy and Psychology,” 9(3), 36–44. https://doi.org/10.52534/msu-pp3.2023.36
  22. Ferrara, E. (2024). Fairness and bias in artificial intelligence: A brief survey of sources, impacts, and mitigation strategies. Sci, 6(1), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/sci6010003
  23. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2011). Predicting and changing behavior. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203838020
  24. Ghasemy, M., Teeroovengadum, V., Becker, J. M., & Ringle, C. M. (2020). This fast car can move faster: A review of PLS-SEM application in higher education research. Higher Education, 80(6), 1121–1152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00534-1
  25. Golda, A., Mekonen, K., Pandey, A., Singh, A., Hassija, V., Chamola, V., & Sikdar, B. (2024). Privacy and security concerns in generative AI: A comprehensive survey. IEEE Access, 12, 48126–48144. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3381611
  26. Gupta, R., Nair, K., Mishra, M., Ibrahim, B., & Bhardwaj, S. (2024). Adoption and impacts of generative artificial intelligence: Theoretical underpinnings and research agenda. International Journal of Information Management Data Insights, 4(1), Article 100232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjimei.2024.100232
  27. Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., & Ray, S. (2021). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using R: A workbook. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80519-7
  28. Hair Jr, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
  29. Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P. A. (2017). Partial least squares path modeling: Updated guidelines. In H. Latan, & R. Noonan (Eds.), Partial least squares path modeling (pp. 19–39). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64069-3_2
  30. Ishmuradova, I. I., Chistyakov, A. A., Brodskaya, T. A., Kosarenko, N. N., Savchenko, N. V., & Shindryaeva, N. N. (2025). Latent profiles of AI learning conditions among university students: Implications for educational intentions. Contemporary Educational Technology, 17(2), Article ep565. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/15907
  31. Ivanov, S., Soliman, M., Tuomi, A., Alkathiri, N. A., & Al-Alawi, A. N. (2024). Drivers of generative AI adoption in higher education through the lens of the theory of planned behaviour. Technology in Society, 77, Article 102521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102521
  32. Jiao, Y., Gabryś, A., Tinchev, G., Putrycz, B., Korzekwa, D., & Klimkov, V. (2021). Universal neural vocoding with parallel wavenet. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (pp. 6044–6048). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP39728.2021.9414444
  33. Kohnke, L., Moorhouse, B. L., & Zou, D. (2023). Exploring generative artificial intelligence preparedness among university language instructors: A case study. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 5, Article 100156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100156
  34. Kwak, Y., Seo, Y. H., & Ahn, J. W. (2022). Nursing students’ intent to use AI-based healthcare technology: Path analysis using the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Nurse Education Today, 119, Article 105541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2022.105541
  35. Lee, Y.-J., Oh, J., & Hong, C. (2024). Exploratory research on understanding university students’ artificial intelligence literacy in a Korean university. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 14(3), Article e202440. https://doi.org/10.30935/ojcmt/14711
  36. Liu, Y., & Li, H. (2011). Exploring the impact of use context on mobile hedonic services adoption: An empirical study on mobile gaming in China. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 890–898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.11.014
  37. Luan, H., Geczy, P., Lai, H., Gobert, J., Yang, S. J. H., Ogata, H., Baltes, J., Guerra, R., Li, P., & Tsai, C. C. (2020). Challenges and future directions of big data and artificial intelligence in education. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.580820
  38. Martinez, B. M., & McAndrews, L. E. (2023). Investigating U.S. consumers’ mobile pay through UTAUT2 and generational cohort theory: An analysis of mobile pay in pandemic times. Telematics and Informatics Reports, 11, Article 100076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teler.2023.100076
  39. Michel-Villarreal, R., Vilalta-Perdomo, E., Salinas-Navarro, D. E., Thierry-Aguilera, R., & Gerardou, F. S. (2023). Challenges and opportunities of generative AI for higher education as explained by ChatGPT. Education Sciences, 13(9), Article 856. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13090856
  40. Mucundorfeanu, M., & Lupaș, C. (2018). I have, I post, therefore I am! Hedonic consumption as a tool for self-promoting behavior on social networking platforms. Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai Ephemerides, 63(2), 65–89. https://doi.org/10.24193/subbeph.2018.2.04
  41. Nikolopoulou, K., Gialamas, V., & Lavidas, K. (2021). Habit, hedonic motivation, performance expectancy and technological pedagogical knowledge affect teachers’ intention to use mobile internet. Computers and Education Open, 2, Article 100041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2021.100041
  42. Ofem, U. J., & Chukwujama, G. (2024). Sustainable artificial intelligence-driven classroom assessment in higher institutions: Lessons from Estonia, China, the USA, and Australia for Nigeria. European Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Education, 5(2), Article e02403. https://doi.org/10.30935/ejimed/15265
  43. Okunade, A. I. (2024). The role of artificial intelligence in teaching of science education in secondary schools in Nigeria. European Journal of Computer Science and Information Technology, 12(1), 57–67. https://doi.org/10.37745/ejcsit2013/vol12n15767
  44. Paiman, N., & Fauzi, M. A. (2023). Exploring determinants of social media addiction in higher education through the integrated lenses of technology acceptance model (TAM) and usage habit. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 16(3), 776–803. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-03-2023-0114
  45. Poola, I., & Božić, V. (2023). Guiding AI with human intuition for solving mathematical problems in Chat GPT. International Journal of Engineering & Scientific Research, 11(7), 31–40.
  46. Prinsloo, P., Slade, S., & Khalil, M. (2022). The answer is (not only) technological: Considering student data privacy in learning analytics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(4), 876–893. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13216
  47. Rahi, S., Othman Mansour, M. M., Alghizzawi, M., & Alnaser, F. M. (2019). Integration of UTAUT model in internet banking adoption context: The mediating role of performance expectancy and effort expectancy. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 13(3), 411–435. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-02-2018-0032
  48. Raman, A., & Don, Y. (2013). Preservice teachers’ acceptance of learning management software: An application of the UTAUT2 model. International Education Studies, 6(7), 157–164. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v6n7p157
  49. Ramesh, A., Dhariwal, P., Nichol, A., Chu, C., & Chen, M. (2022). Hierarchical text-conditional image generation with CLIP latents. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2204.06125
  50. Ramírez-Correa, P., Rondán-Cataluña, F. J., Arenas-Gaitán, J., & Martín-Velicia, F. (2019). Analysing the acceptation of online games in mobile devices: An application of UTAUT2. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 50, 85–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.04.018
  51. Ray, S., & Danks, N. (2020). SEMinR. CRAN. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/seminr/vignettes/SEMinR.html
  52. Rizvi, M. (2023). Investigating AI-powered tutoring systems that adapt to individual student needs, providing personalized guidance and assessments. The Eurasia Proceedings of Educational and Social Sciences, 31, 61–73. https://doi.org/10.55549/epess.1381518
  53. Russo, D. (2024). Navigating the complexity of generative AI adoption in software engineering. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 33(5), Article 135. https://doi.org/10.1145/3652154
  54. Sari, N. P. W. P., Duong, M.-P. T., Li, D., Nguyen, M.-H., & Vuong, Q.-H. (2024). Rethinking the effects of performance expectancy and effort expectancy on new technology adoption: Evidence from Moroccan nursing students. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 19(3), e557–e565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teln.2024.04.002
  55. Scherer, R., & Teo, T. (2019). Unpacking teachers’ intentions to integrate technology: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 27, 90–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.03.001
  56. Sharif, A., Afshan, S., & Qureshi, M. A. (2019). Acceptance of learning management system in university students: An integrating framework of modified UTAUT2 and TTF theories. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTEL.2019.098810
  57. Stollfuß, S. (2020). Communitainment on Instagram: Fitness content and community-driven communication as social media entertainment. SAGE Open, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020919535
  58. Strzelecki, A., & ElArabawy, S. (2024). Investigation of the moderation effect of gender and study level on the acceptance and use of generative AI by higher education students: Comparative evidence from Poland and Egypt. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(3), 1209–1230. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13425
  59. Su, J., & Yang, W. (2023). Unlocking the power of ChatGPT: A framework for applying generative AI in education. ECNU Review of Education, 6(3), 355–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311231168423
  60. Tamilmani, K., Rana, N. P., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2018). Mobile application adoption predictors: Systematic review of UTAUT2 studies using weight analysis. In Challenges and opportunities in the digital era. I3E 2018. Lecture notes in computer science (), vol 11195 (pp. 1–12). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02131-3_1
  61. Tamilmani, K., Rana, N. P., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2019). Use of ‘habit’ is not a habit in understanding individual technology adoption: A review of UTAUT2 based empirical studies. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, 533, 277–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04315-5_19
  62. Tamilmani, K., Rana, N. P., Wamba, S. F., & Dwivedi, R. (2021). The extended unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT2): A systematic literature review and theory evaluation. International Journal of Information Management, 57, Article 102269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102269
  63. Tamilmani, K., Rana, N., Dwivedi, Y., Sahu, G. P., & Roderick, S. (2018). Association for information systems AIS electronic library (AISeL) exploring the role of “price value” for understanding consumer adoption of technology: A review and meta-analysis of UTAUT2 based empirical studies. PACIS 2018 Proceedings, 64.
  64. Vallis, C., Wilson, S., Gozman, D., & Buchanan, J. (2023). Student perceptions of AI-generated avatars in teaching business ethics: We might not be impressed. Postdigital Science and Education, 6, 537–555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-023-00407-7
  65. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
  66. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (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
  67. Wang, Y., & Zhang, W. (2023). Factors influencing the adoption of generative AI for art designing among Chinese generation Z: A structural equation modeling approach. IEEE Access, 11, 143272–143284. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3342055
  68. Warshaw, P. R., & Davis, F. D. (1985). Disentangling behavioral intention and behavioral expectation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21(3), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(85)90017-4
  69. Yusuf, A., Pervin, N., & Román-González, M. (2024). Generative AI and the future of higher education: A threat to academic integrity or reformation? Evidence from multicultural perspectives. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21, Article 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00453-6
  70. Zastudil, C., Rogalska, M., Kapp, C., Vaughn, J., & MacNeil, S. (2023). Generative AI in computing education: Perspectives of students and instructors. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2204.06125
  71. Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education–Where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16, Article 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
  72. Zemplényi, A., Tachkov, K., Balkanyi, L., Németh, B., Petykó, Z. I., Petrova, G., Czech, M., Dawoud, D., Goettsch, W., Gutierrez Ibarluzea, I., Hren, R., Knies, S., Lorenzovici, L., Maravic, Z., Piniazhko, O., Savova, A., Manova, M., Tesar, T., Zerovnik, S., & Kaló, Z. (2023). Recommendations to overcome barriers to the use of artificial intelligence-driven evidence in health technology assessment. Frontiers in Public Health, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1088121
  73. Zhang, C., Schießl, J., Plößl, L., Hofmann, F., & Gläser-Zikuda, M. (2023). Acceptance of artificial intelligence among pre-service teachers: a multigroup analysis. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20, Article 49. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00420-7
  74. Zhang, K., & Aslan, A. B. (2021). AI technologies for education: Recent research & future directions. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, Article 100025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100025
  75. Zhou, M., Huang, J., Wu, K., Huang, X., Kong, N., & Campy, K. S. (2021). Characterizing Chinese consumers’ intention to use live e-commerce shopping. Technology in Society, 67, Article 101767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101767