The DOI matches its Crossref record; 61 of the 61 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Drivers of generative AI adoption in higher education through the lens of the Theory of Planned Behaviour
Open accessAbstract
Drawing on the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), this study investigates the relationship between the perceived benefits, strengths, weaknesses, and risks of generative AI (GenAI) tools and the fundamental factors of the TPB model (i.e., attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control). The study also investigates the structural association between the TPB variables and intention to use GenAI tools, and how the latter might affect the actual usage of GenAI tools in higher education. The paper adopts a quantitative approach, relying on an anonymous self-administered online questionnaire to gather primary data from 130 lecturers and 168 students in higher education institutions (HEIs) in several countries, and PLS-SEM for data analysis. The results indicate that although lecturers' and students' perceptions of the risks and weaknesses of GenAI tools differ, the perceived strengths and advantages of GenAI technologies have a significant and positive impact on their attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control. The TPB core variables positively and significantly impact lecturers' and students’ intentions to use GenAI tools, which in turn significantly and positively impact their adoption of such tools. This paper advances theory by outlining the factors shaping the adoption of GenAI technologies in HEIs. It provides stakeholders with a variety of managerial and policy implications for how to formulate suitable rules and regulations to utilise the…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“However, the challenges introduced by generative AI require further exploration within this framework (Ivanov et al. 2024).”
From Addressing student non-compliance in AI use declarations: implications for academic integrity and assessment in higher education (2025) · cites this paper as Ivanov et al. 2024
In the citing paper
“In line with prior research, findings of this study reveal that the influence of subjective norms, particularly the pressure to conform to peer behaviours and group norms, influences academic integrity behaviours (Asch 1951; McCabe and Trevino 1993; Ivanov et al. 2024).”
From Addressing student non-compliance in AI use declarations: implications for academic integrity and assessment in higher education (2025) · cites this paper as Ivanov et al. 2024
In the citing paper
“Similarly, Ivanov et al. (2024) showed that when non-declaration of AI use is common within a peer group, students are less likely to comply with declaration requirements, reflecting how subjective norms influence academic dishonesty (Stone, Jawahar, and Kisamore 2009).”
From Addressing student non-compliance in AI use declarations: implications for academic integrity and assessment in higher education (2025) · cites this paper as Ivanov et al. 2024
In the citing paper
“Perceived behavioral control is a construct of the Theory of Planned Behavior and has been found to be statistically significant in the intention to use AI among program designers and higher educators (Ivanov et al., 2024;Jiao & Cao, 2024).”
From Into the Unknown: AI Adoption and Job Satisfaction of Christian Faculty (2026) · cites this paper as Ivanov et al., 2024
Citations
Cites
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587
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
User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward A Unified View1
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036540 · Cited by 45,035
A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8 · Cited by 38,459
A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926 · Cited by 23,066
Pls-Sem: indeed a silver bullet
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011) · Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice · doi:10.2753/mtp1069-6679190202 · Cited by 21,631
Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224378101800313 · Cited by 13,287
The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update
(2003) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748 · Cited by 11,791
ChatGPT for Good? On Opportunities and Challenges of Large Language Models for Education
Kasneci, E., Seßler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., et al. (2023) · doi:10.35542/osf.io/5er8f · Cited by 7,552
ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education
Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., et al. (2023) · Learning and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274 · Cited by 7,326 · cited 10×
“[9,12,14 – 16]).”
BackgroundInfluential
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Vogler, 2024, 2023 – an AI university space Odyssey, ROBONOMICS: J. Autom. Econ., 5, 55
- Gilson, 2022, How well does ChatGPT do when taking the medical licensing exams? The implications of large language models for medical education and knowledge assessment, medRxiv, 1
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Wang, C., Wang, H., Li, Y., Dai, J., Gu, X., & Yu, T. (2024) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2383033 · Cited by 468
Generative AI in education and research: A systematic mapping review
Yusuf, A., Pervin, N., Román‐González, M., & Noor, N. M. (2024) · Review of Education · doi:10.1002/rev3.3489 · Cited by 182
Zhang, L., & Xu, J. (2025) · The Internet and Higher Education · doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2024.100978 · Cited by 168
Baig, M. I., & Yadegaridehkordi, E. (2025) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-025-00506-4 · Cited by 161
Falebita, O. S., & Kok, P. J. (2024) · Journal for STEM Education Research · doi:10.1007/s41979-024-00132-1 · Cited by 154
Metadata
- Authors
- Ivanov, S., Soliman, M., Tuomi, A., Alkathiri, N. A., & Al-Alawi, A. N.
- Affiliations
- Varna University of Management (BG)
- University of Technology and Applied Sciences-Salalah (OM)
- Haaga-Helia University of Applied Sciences (FI)
- University of Technology and Applied Sciences — Ibri (OM)
- Corresponding author
- Ivanov, Stanislav
- Venue
- Technology in Society
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024-06
- Volume
- 77
- Pages
- 102521
- ISSN
- 0160-791X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4393149408
- Cited by
- 397
- References
- 59
- Citations by year
- 2026: 168 · 2025: 186 · 2024: 43
- FWCI
- 148.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Technology in Society (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Theseus (Ammattikorkeakoulujen) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- generative AI adoption, higher education, theory of planned behavior, perceived benefits, risk perception, attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, intention to use, lecturers, students, AI regulation
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
