CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 39Artificial Intelligence in EducationTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourTechnostress in Professional Settings

Are university teachers ready for generative artificial intelligence? Unpacking faculty anxiety in the ChatGPT era

Open access
Verano-Tacoronte, Domingo, Bolívar-Cruz, Alicia, Sosa-Cabrera, Silvia·2025·Education and Information Technologies
DOI 10.1007/s10639-025-13585-7
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This study investigates the role of technology‐related anxiety in shaping university teachers’ behavioral intention to adopt ChatGPT. Three distinct types of anxiety are examined: (a) anxiety about the future of the academic profession, (b) anxiety regarding the personal misuse of ChatGPT, and (c) anxiety concerning negative impacts on student learning. A structured questionnaire was administered to 249 faculty members from Spanish public universities. Data were analyzed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) to assess both the direct effects of each type of anxiety on behavioral intention and the mediating roles of effort expectancy (EE) and performance expectancy (PE). Results indicate that anxiety about student learning exhibits a significant negative direct effect on behavioral intention and an indirect effect through performance expectancy. Similarly, anxiety related to the misuse of ChatGPT is negatively associated with behavioral intention, with significant mediation through both EE and PE. In contrast, anxiety concerning the future of the academic profession does not show a statistically significant relationship with behavioral intention. The findings underscore the importance of addressing specific psychological barriers—particularly those linked to concerns over student learning and technology misuse—to facilitate ChatGPT integration in higher education. The study suggests that effective implementation strategies should combine technical training with targeted interventions aimed at managing technology-related anxiety, enhancing ethical practices, and improving perceptions of the tool’s utility and ease of use.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10639-025-13585-7

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Negative emotions experienced by educators and students include anxiety, although both efficiency and stress levels fall at the same time.

    “According to Verano-Tacoronte et al. (2025) and Deng et al. (2025), negative emotions experienced by educators and students are anxiety, although both efficiency and stress levels fall at the same time.”

    From Mapping the impact of generative AI in higher education: A scoping review of psychological and equity dimensions. (2026) · cites this paper as Verano-Tacoronte et al. (2025)

    Section 2.2.2 discusses university teachers’ anxiety about generative AI and says it may reduce their perceived usefulness of the technology. The paper does not establish anxiety among students or show that actual efficiency and stress levels fall at the same time; perceived performance is not measured efficiency. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 53

  1. Al Darayseh, A. (2023). Acceptance of artificial intelligence in teaching science: Science teachers' per- spective. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 4(February), 100132. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. caeai. 2023. 100132 · DOI
  2. Arpaci, I., & Basol, G. (2020). The impact of preservice teachers' cognitive and technological percep- tions on their continuous intention to use flipped classroom. Education and Information Technolo- gies, 25(5), 3503-3514. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10639-020-10104-8 · DOI
  3. Bae, M., Wang, J., Xue, H., Chong, S. M., Kwon, O., & Ki, C.-W. (2024). Does ChatGPT help or hin- der education? Exploring its benefits, challenges, student guilt, and the need for educator training. International Journal of Fashion Design, Technology and Education, 1-16,. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 17543 266. 2024. 24305 · DOI
  4. Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359-373. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1521/ jscp. 1986.4. 3. 359 · DOI
  5. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychologi- cal research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0022-3514. 51.6. 1173 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Becker, J.-M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Völckner, F. (2015). How collinearity affects mixture regression results. Marketing Letters, 26(4), 643-659. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11002-014-9299-9 · DOI
  7. Celik, H. (2016). Customer online shopping anxiety within the unified theory of acceptance and use tech- nology (UTAUT) framework. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 28(2). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ APJML-05-2015-0077 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Cepeda, G., Nitzl, C., Roldán, J. L. (2017). Mediation analyses in partial least squares structural equation modeling: Guidelines and empirical examples. In H. Latan spsampsps R. Noonan (Eds.), Partial least squares path modeling (pp. 173-195). Springer International Publishing. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-3-319-64069-3_8 · DOI
  9. Chiu, T. K. F., & Churchill, D. (2016). Adoption of mobile devices in teaching: Changes in teacher beliefs, attitudes and anxiety. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(2), 317-327. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10494 820. 2015. 11137 · DOI
  10. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. In NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates (Second Edition).
  11. Debasa, F., Gelashvili, V., Martínez-Navalón, J. G., & Saura, J. R. (2023). Do stress and anxiety influence users' intention to make restaurant reservations through mobile apps? European Research on Man- agement and Business Economics, 29(1). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. iedeen. 2022. 100205 · DOI
  12. Dijkstra, T. K., & Henseler, J. (2015). Consistent partial least squares path modeling. MIS Quarterly, 39(2), 297-316. https:// doi. org/ 10. 25300/ MISQ/ 2015/ 39.2. 02 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Dowling, M., & Lucey, B. (2023). ChatGPT for (Finance) research: The bananarama conjecture. Finance Research Letters, 53, 103662. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. frl. 2023. 103662 · DOI
  14. Duong, C. D., Ngo, T. V. N., Khuc, T. A., Tran, N. M., & Nguyen, T. P. T. (2024). Unraveling the dark side of ChatGPT: A moderated mediation model of technology anxiety and technostress. Informa- tion Technology and People. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ ITP-11-2023-1151 · DOI
  15. Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah, A. M., Koohang, A., Raghavan, V., Ahuja, M., Albanna, H., Albashrawi, M. A., Al-Busaidi, A. S., Bal- akrishnan, J., Barlette, Y., Basu, S., Bose, I., Brooks, L., Buhalis, D., & Wright, R. (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 Informa- tion Management, 71,. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijinf omgt. 2023. 102642 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Edwards, B. I., & Cheok, A. D. (2018). Why not robot teachers: Artificial intelligence for addressing teacher shortage. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 32(4), 345-360. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 08839 514. 2018. 14642 · DOI
  17. Else, H. (2023). Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists. Nature, 613(7944), 423-423. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ d41586-023-00056-7 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Farooq, M. S., Salam, M., Jaafar, N., Fayolle, A., Ayupp, K., Radovic-Markovic, M., & Sajid, A. (2017). Acceptance and use of lecture capture system (LCS) in executive business studies: Extending UTAUT2. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 14(4), 329-348. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ ITSE-06-2016-0015 · DOI
  19. Felten, E. W., Raj, M., & Seamans, R. (2023). How will language modelers like ChatGPT Affect occupa- tions and industries? SSRN Electronic Journal. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2139/ ssrn. 43752 68 · DOI
  20. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. 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/ 00222 43781 01800 104 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Garone, A., Pynoo, B., Tondeur, J., Cocquyt, C., Vanslambrouck, S., Bruggeman, B., & Struyven, K. (2019). Clustering university teaching staff through UTAUT: Implications for the acceptance of a new learning management system. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2466-2483. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ bjet. 12867 · DOI
  22. Gelbrich, K., & Sattler, B. (2014). Anxiety, crowding, and time pressure in public self-service tech- nology acceptance. Journal of Services Marketing, 28(1), 82-94. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ JSM-02-2012-0051 · DOI
  23. Gunasinghe, A., & Nanayakkara, S. (2021). Role of technology anxiety within UTAUT in understand- ing non-user adoption intentions to virtual learning environments: The state university lecturers' perspective. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 13(3), 284. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1504/ IJTEL. 2021. 10036 681 · DOI
  24. Gunasinghe, A., Hamid, J. A., Khatibi, A., & Azam, S. M. F. (2019). The adequacy of UTAUT-3 in inter- preting academician's adoption to e-Learning in higher education environments. Interactive Tech- nology and Smart Education, 17(1), 86-106. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ ITSE-05-2019-0020 · DOI
  25. Hair, J. F., Mult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares struc- tural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). SAGE Publications.
  26. Hair, 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 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A primer on partial least squares struc- tural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). SAGE.
  28. Hazzan-Bishara, A., Kol, O., & Levy, S. (2025). The factors affecting teachers' adoption of AI technolo- gies: A unified model of external and internal determinants. Education and Information Technolo- gies. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10639-025-13393-z · DOI
  29. Henderson, J., & Corry, M. (2021). Teacher anxiety and technology change: A review of the literature. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 30(4), 573-587. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14759 39X. 2021. 19314 · DOI
  30. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11747-014-0403-8 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Hidayat-ur-Rehman, I., & Ibrahim, Y. (2024). Exploring factors influencing educators' adoption of Chat- GPT: A mixed method approach. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 21(4), 499-534. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ ITSE-07-2023-0127 · DOI
  32. Hu, S., Laxman, K., & Lee, K. (2020). Exploring factors affecting academics' adoption of emerging mobile technologies-an extended UTAUT perspective. Education and Information Technologies, 25(5), 4615-4635. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10639-020-10171-x · DOI
  33. Hu, L., Wang, H., & Xin, Y. (2025). Factors influencing Chinese pre-service teachers' adoption of gen- erative AI in teaching: An empirical study based on UTAUT2 and PLS-SEM. Education and Infor- mation Technologies. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10639-025-13353-7 · DOI
  34. Huang, X., Xu, W., Li, F., & Yu, Z. (2024). A meta-analysis of effects of automated writing evaluation on anxiety, motivation, and second language writing skills. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 33(4), 957-976. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s40299-024-00865-y · DOI
  35. Ilieva, G., Yankova, T., Klisarova-Belcheva, S., Dimitrov, A., Bratkov, M., & Angelov, D. (2023). Effects of generative chatbots in higher education. Information, 14(9), 492. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ info1 40904 · DOI
  36. Jain, K. K., & Raghuram, J. N. V. (2024). Gen-AI integration in higher education: Predicting intentions using SEM-ANN approach. Education and Information Technologies. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10639-024-12506-4 · DOI
  37. Jo, H. (2023). Decoding the ChatGPT mystery: A comprehensive exploration of factors driving AI lan- guage model adoption. Information Development. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 02666 66923 12027 · DOI
  38. Lakhal, S., & Khechine, H. (2021). Technological factors of students' persistence in online courses in higher education: The moderating role of gender, age and prior online course experience. Educa- tion and Information Technologies, 26(3), 3347-3373. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10639-020-10407-w · DOI
  39. Lee, S.-S., Li, N., & Kim, J. (2024). Conceptual model for Mexican teachers' adoption of learning analyt- ics systems: The integration of the information system success model and the technology accept- ance model. Education and Information Technologies, 29(11), 13387-13412. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10639-023-12371-7 · DOI
  40. Li, Y., Sadiq, G., Qambar, G., & Zheng, P. (2024). The impact of students' use of ChatGPT on their research skills: The mediating effects of autonomous motivation, engagement, and self-directed learning. Education and Information Technologies. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10639-024-12981-9 · DOI
  41. Mac Callum, K., & Jeffrey, L. (2014). Comparing the role of ICT literacy and anxiety in the adoption of mobile learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 8-19. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chb. 2014. 05. 024 · DOI
  42. Nitzl, C., Roldan, J. L., & Cepeda, G. (2016). Mediation analysis in partial least squares path mod- eling. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(9), 1849-1864. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ IMDS-07-2015-0302 · DOI
  43. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill.
  44. Ooi, K.-B. (2014). TQM: A facilitator to enhance knowledge management? A structural analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(11), 5167-5179. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. eswa. 2014. 03. 013 · DOI
  45. Pasupuleti, R. S., & Thiyyagura, D. (2024). An empirical evidence on the continuance and recom- mendation intention of ChatGPT among higher education students in India: An extended tech- nology continuance theory. Education and Information Technologies. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10639-024-12573-7 · DOI
  46. Peterson, R. A. (1994). A meta-analysis of Cronbach's coefficient alpha. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(2), 381-391. Retrieved January 16, 2025, from https:// www. jstor. org/ stable/ 24898 28
  47. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539-569. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1146/ annur ev-psych-120710-100452 · DOI · Paper page
  48. Sampson, S. E. (2021). A strategic framework for task automation in professional services. Journal of Service Research, 24(1), 122-140. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10946 70520 940407 · DOI
  49. Shmueli, G., Ray, S., Velasquez Estrada, J. M., & Chatla, S. B. (2016). The elephant in the room: Predic- tive performance of PLS models. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4552-4564. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusr es. 2016. 03. 049 · DOI
  50. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & 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/ 41410 412 · DOI · Paper page
  51. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information tech- nology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478. Retrieved November 19, 2024, from https:// www. jstor. org/ stable/ 30036 540
  52. Wang, Y.-Y., & Wang, Y.-S. (2022). Development and validation of an artificial intelligence anxiety scale: An initial application in predicting motivated learning behavior. Interactive Learning Envi- ronments, 30(4), 619-634. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10494 820. 2019. 16748 · DOI
  53. Xue, L., Rashid, A. M., & Ouyang, S. (2024). The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) in higher education: A systematic review. Sage Open, 14(1). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 21582 44024 12295 70 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Verano-Tacoronte, D., Bolívar-Cruz, A., & Sosa-Cabrera, S.
ORCID
Venue
Education and Information Technologies
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2025-04-28
Volume
30
Issue
14
Pages
20495-20522
ISSN
  • 1360-2357 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7608
DOI
10.1007/s10639-025-13585-7
OpenAlex
W4409865686
Cited by
39
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 7
FWCI
40.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Education and Information Technologies (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Acceda (Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Universidad de las Palmas de Gran Canaria
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Technostress in Professional Settings
Keywords
generative AI, ChatGPT, technology anxiety, university faculty, effort expectancy, performance expectancy, AI misuse, student learning, technology acceptance

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