The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Factors Influencing University Students’ Behavioral Intention to Use Generative Artificial Intelligence: Integrating the Theory of Planned Behavior and AI Literacy
Abstract
Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) advancements have ignited new expectations for artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled educational transformations. Based on the theory of planned behavior (TPB), this study combines structural equation modeling and interviews to analyze the influencing factors of Chinese university students’ GAI technology usage intention. Regarding AI literacy, students’ cognitive literacy in AI ethics scored the highest (M = 5.740), while AI awareness literacy scored the lowest (M = 4.578). Students’ attitudes toward GAI significantly and positively influenced their usage intention, with the combined TPB framework and AI literacy explaining 59.3% of the variance. AI literacy and subjective norms positively influenced students’ attitudes toward GAI technology and perceived behavioral control, and attitude mediated the impact of AI literacy and subjective norms on GAI usage intention. Further, the interviews provide new insights for university management and educational leadership regarding the construction of an educational ecosystem under the application of GAI technology.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
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
On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/bf02723327 · Cited by 26,163
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017) · Aldine (Routledge reprint) · doi:10.4324/9780203793206 · Cited by 25,789
From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior
Ajzen, I. (1985) · Action Control · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2 · Cited by 19,057
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.3.4.424 · Cited by 12,298
Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical Mediation Analysis in the New Millennium
Hayes, A. F. (2009) · Communication Monographs · doi:10.1080/03637750903310360 · Cited by 9,757
A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.83 · Cited by 9,406 · cited 1×
“Therefore, this study employed the bootstrapping method with confidence intervals (CI) to conduct a mediation analysis; this is widely recognized as the most advantageous approach in current mediation testing (MacKinnon et al., 2002).”
An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-011-0261-6 · Cited by 8,088
Predicting and Changing Behavior
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2011) · doi:10.4324/9780203838020 · Cited by 2,807
Students' voices on generative ai: perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education
Chan, C. K. Y., & Hu, W. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.00290 · Cited by 2,504 · cited 1×
“Both models exemplify the transformative potential of GAI technology in education by reshaping the logic of educational resource creation and dissemination, altering teachers’ roles, and rede-fining educational objectives (Abbas et al., 2024; Chan & Hu, 2023).”
Cited by
Modeling AI-assisted writing: How self-regulated learning influences writing outcomes
Jin, F., Lin, C.-H., & Lai, C. (2025) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2024.108538 · Cited by 93
Wang, F., Li, N., Cheung, A. C. K., & Wong, G. K. W. (2025) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-025-00547-9 · Cited by 69
The AI literacy heptagon: A structured approach to AI literacy in higher education
Hackl, V., Müller, A. E., & Sailer, M. (2026) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2026.100540 · Cited by 41
Shang, X., Liu, Z., Gong, C., Hu, Z., Wu, Y., & Wang, C. (2024) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-024-03658-2 · Cited by 37
Self-citationDing, N., Chen, M., & Hu, L. (2025) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105650 · Cited by 11
GenAI in Indian higher education: faculty at the crossroads of adoption
Razi-ur-Rahim, M., Uddin, F., Chauhan, J., & Faisal, K. P. (2026) · Asian Education and Development Studies · doi:10.1108/aeds-04-2025-0194 · Cited by 9
Ding, N., Chen, M., & Hu, L. (2025) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105709 · Cited by 7
Li, X., & Awang, M. M. B. (2026) · European Journal of Education · doi:10.1111/ejed.70490 · Cited by 7
Flipped design thinking with generative AI for digital literacy in ODL
Suwardika, G., Sopandi, A. T., Indrawan, I. P. O., & Masakazu, K. (2026) · Asian Association of Open Universities Journal · doi:10.1108/aaouj-11-2025-0206 · Cited by 3
Wang, G., Tian, L., & Xing, X. (2026) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2025.2565684 · Cited by 1
Haytboyeva, M., Shihova, H., & Saidmamatov, O. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1879180
Assessment of ICT Literacy and Usage among Undergraduates in Yezin Agricultural University, Myanmar
Mon, Y. P., Myint, T., Hein, Y., & Oo, S. P. (2025) · Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology · doi:10.9734/ajaees/2025/v43i52752
Metadata
- Authors
- Wang, C., Wang, H., Li, Y., Dai, J., Gu, X., & Yu, T.
- Venue
- International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2024-07-29
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 6649-6671
- ISSN
- 1044-7318 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7590
- OpenAlex
- W4401077562
- Cited by
- 353
- References
- 32
- FWCI
- 135.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
