International perspectives on artificial intelligence in higher education: An explorative study of students’ intention to use ChatGPT across the nordic countries and the USA
Open accessAbstract
This study explored factors influencing ChatGPT adoption among higher education students in five Nordic countries (Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, and Iceland) and the USA. The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology 2 (UTAUT2) framework was employed and extended to incorporate personal innovativeness. Data was collected from 586 students recruited through Prolific and analyzed using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). The findings revealed varying patterns of relationships between different factors and behavioral intention in each region. In the Nordic countries, performance expectancy, hedonic motivation, and habit demonstrated positive relationships with behavioral intention. In the USA, the results revealed positive relationships between behavioral intention and performance expectancy, social influence, habit, and personal innovativeness. Performance expectancy emerged as the strongest predictor of behavioral intention in both regions. In both the Nordic countries and the USA, habit and behavioral intention emerged as the only predictors of ChatGPT use behavior. Behavioral intention demonstrated a marginally stronger influence on use behavior in both regions. These findings offer insights for educators and policymakers regarding AI integration in academic settings by highlighting common drivers and differences in AI adoption patterns.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The questionnaire design was informed by the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and recent studies on GenAI adoption in higher education.
“The questionnaire design was informed by the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000) and recent studies on GenAI adoption in higher education (e.g., Faraon et al., 2025).”
From Integrating Generative AI into Programming Education: Student Perceptions and the Challenge of Correcting AI Errors (2025) · cites this paper as Faraon et al., 2025
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194 · see citing works
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483 · see citing works
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/bf03193146 · Cited by 65,971 · see citing works
Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Using R: A Workbook
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., & Ray, S. (2021) · Classroom Companion: Business · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-80519-7 · Cited by 10,343 · see citing works
Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: guidelines for using PLSpredict
Shmueli, G., Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Cheah, J.-H., Ting, H., Vaithilingam, S., & Ringle, C. M. (2019) · European Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1108/ejm-02-2019-0189 · Cited by 4,618 · see citing works
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1998) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.9.2.204 · Cited by 3,575 · see citing works
Dwivedi, Y. K., Rana, N. P., Jeyaraj, A., Clement, M., & Williams, M. D. (2019) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-017-9774-y · Cited by 2,137 · see citing works
A new look at habits and the habit-goal interface.
Wood, W., & Neal, D. T. (2007) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.114.4.843 · Cited by 1,470 · see citing works
Yi, M. Y., Jackson, J. D., Park, J. S., & Probst, J. C. (2006) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2005.08.006 · Cited by 1,139 · see citing works
Chao, C.-M. (2019) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01652 · Cited by 1,041 · see citing works
Strzelecki, A. (2024) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2023.2209881 · Cited by 807 · cited 10× · see citing works
“The results in the USA align with studies that emphasize the role of personal innovativeness in ChatGPT adoption (Arif et al., 2024; Biloš & Budimir, 2024; Jo, 2023; Strzelecki, 2023).”
InfluentialChatbots in Education and Research: A Critical Examination of Ethical Implications and Solutions
Kooli, C. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su15075614 · Cited by 666 · cited 1× · see citing works
“An example of generative AI is the development of chatbots, broadly defined as “automated conversational agents that use natural language processing and machine learning algorithms to interact with users in a human-like manner” (Kooli, 2023, p. 2).”
Al-Adwan, A. S., Li, N., Al-Adwan, A., Abbasi, G. A., Albelbisi, N. A., & Habibi, A. (2023) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-11816-3 · Cited by 637 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The TAM model continues to be adapted and extended to study emerging technologies in education, as demonstrated by recent work examining metaverse-based learning platforms (Al-Adwan et al., 2023).”
ChatGPT in education: Strategies for responsible implementation
Halaweh, M. (2023) · Contemporary Educational Technology · doi:10.30935/cedtech/13036 · Cited by 607 · cited 1× · see citing works
“It has also been used to provide personalized assistance to students by summarizing papers, generating practice materials, and offering feedback on writing (Halaweh, 2023).”
Strzelecki, A. (2024) · Innovative Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s10755-023-09686-1 · Cited by 477 · cited 14× · see citing works
“Following Strzelecki (2024), this study operationalized the use of ChatGPT by adopting a seven-point scale, ranging from “never” to “several times a day” to capture the varying levels of user engagement with the AI-service.”
InfluentialMcDonald, N., Johri, A., Ali, A., & Collier, A. H. (2025) · Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans · doi:10.1016/j.chbah.2025.100121 · Cited by 295 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Recent policy analysis by McDonald et al. (2025) found that 63% of US universities actively encourage ChatGPT use.”
Strzelecki, A., & ElArabawy, S. (2024) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13425 · Cited by 260 · cited 1× · see citing works
“This result aligns with certain studies on ChatGPT (Habibi et al., 2023), but is in contrast to other studies examining both ChatGPT specifically (Strzelecki & ElArabawy, 2024) and AI technologies more broadly (Kwak et al., 2022; Tran et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2022).”
Hoi, V. N. (2020) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103761 · Cited by 250 · see citing works
Factors Influencing Learner Attitudes Towards ChatGPT-Assisted Language Learning in Higher Education
Cai, Q., Lin, Y., & Yu, Z. (2024) · International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2023.2261725 · Cited by 180 · see citing works
Generative AI’s Impact on Critical Thinking: Revisiting Bloom’s Taxonomy
Gonsalves, C. (2026) · Journal of Marketing Education · doi:10.1177/02734753241305980 · Cited by 161 · see citing works
Sidik, D., & Syafar, F. (2020) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-019-10018-0 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Harvard Undergraduate Survey on Generative AI
Hirabayashi, S., Jain, R., Jurković, N., & Wu, G. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.00833 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kohen-Vacs, D., Usher, M., & Jansen, M. (2025) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1007/s40593-025-00496-4 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
“The questionnaire design was informed by the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000) and recent studies on GenAI adoption in higher education (e.g., Faraon et al., 2025).”
From credibility to reliance: Trust in generative AI as an academic information source.
Pudasaini, S. (2026) · Information Development · doi:10.1177/02666669261468286 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Understanding the Generative AI Divide: Faculty and Student Perspectives in Higher Education
DeStefano, C., Hackney, J., & Moskal, P. (2026) · Online Learning · doi:10.24059/olj.v30i2.5911 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Ren, S. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1926110
“Cross-national and discipline-sensitive studies further indicate that acceptance of ChatGPT and generative-AI tools varies according to perceived usefulness, habit, self-efficacy, institutional support, and disciplinary expectations (Strzelecki, 2024; Faraon et al., 2025; Alghamdi, 2025).”
- Authors
- Faraon, M., Rönkkö, K., Milrad, M., & Tsui, E.
- Affiliations
- Kristianstad University (SE)
- Linnaeus University (SE)
- Hong Kong Polytechnic University (HK)
- Corresponding author
- Faraon, Montathar
- Venue
- Education and Information Technologies
- Published
- 2025-03-20
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 13
- Pages
- 17835-17880
- ISSN
- 1360-2357 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-7608
- OpenAlex
- W4408657400
- Cited by
- 50
- References
- 22
- Citations by year
- 2026: 34 · 2025: 16
- FWCI
- 49.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Education and Information Technologies (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Kristianstad University
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, artificial intelligence adoption, university students, behavioral intention, UTAUT2, personal innovativeness, performance expectancy, social influence, habit, hedonic motivation, cross-national comparison, Nordic countries
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
