The DOI matches its Crossref record; 55 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A longitudinal study on artificial intelligence adoption: understanding the drivers of ChatGPT usage behavior change in higher education
Open accessAbstract
As the field of artificial intelligence (AI) continues to progress, the use of AI-powered chatbots, such as ChatGPT, in higher education settings has gained significant attention. This paper addresses a well-defined problem pertaining to the critical need for a comprehensive examination of students' ChatGPT adoption in higher education. To examine such adoption, it is imperative to focus on measuring actual user behavior. While measuring students' ChatGPT usage behavior at a specific point in time can be valuable, a more holistic approach is necessary to understand the temporal dynamics of AI adoption. To address this need, a longitudinal survey was conducted, examining how students' ChatGPT usage behavior changes over time among students, and unveiling the drivers of such behavior change. The empirical examination of 222 Dutch higher education students revealed a significant decline in students' ChatGPT usage behavior over an 8 month period. This period was defined by two distinct data collection phases: the initial phase (T1) and a follow-up phase conducted 8 months later (T2). Furthermore, the results demonstrate that changes in trust, emotional creepiness, and Perceived Behavioral Control significantly predicted the observed change in usage behavior. The findings of this research carry significant academic and managerial implications, as they advance our comprehension of the temporal aspects of AI adoption in higher education. The findings also provide actionable guidance for AI developers and educational institutions seeking to optimize student engagement with AI technologies.
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
Figures
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.
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Polyportis (2024) observes that as students grew more accustomed to ChatGPT, their feelings of emotional creepiness (i.e., the unsettling emotions or discomfort that individuals may encounter when interacting with AI systems that mimic human emotions or intentions) diminished, but their trust levels decreased, leading to decreased usage.”
From Fostering AI Literacy in Undergraduates: A ChatGPT Workshop Case Study (2025) · cites this paper as Polyportis (2024)
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.
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
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
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
Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change
Bandura, A. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191 · Cited by 43,925
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
Valente, T. W. (2003) · Genetics in Medicine · doi:10.1097/01.gim.0000061743.67794.c4 · Cited by 20,559
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/41410412 · Cited by 15,756
Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.6.2.144 · Cited by 8,815
Perceived Behavioral Control, Self‐Efficacy, Locus of Control, and the Theory of Planned Behavior 1
Ajzen, I. (2002) · Journal of Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00236.x · Cited by 7,629
Venkatesh, V. (2000) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872 · Cited by 6,664
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Polyportis, Navigating the perils of artificial intelligence: a focused review on ChatGPT responsible research innovation, Hum. Soc. Sci. Commun.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Does ChatGPT enhance student learning? A systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies
Deng, R., Jiang, M., Yu, X., Lu, Y., & Liu, S. (2025) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105224 · Cited by 531
Polyportis, A., & Pahos, N. (2024) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2024.2317364 · Cited by 264
Self-citationYu, C., Yan, J., & Cai, N. (2024) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2024.1354929 · Cited by 157
Cai, L., Msafiri, M. M., & Kangwa, D. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-024-13112-0 · Cited by 104
Al-kfairy, M. (2024) · Applied System Innovation · doi:10.3390/asi7060110 · Cited by 123
Metadata
- Authors
- Polyportis, A.
- Affiliations
- Delft University of Technology (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Polyportis, Athanasios
- Venue
- Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2024-01-05
- Volume
- 6
- Pages
- 1324398-1324398
- ISSN
- 2624-8212 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC10797058
- OpenAlex
- W4390610074
- Cited by
- 111
- References
- 56
- Citations by year
- 2026: 58 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 17
- FWCI
- 41.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Research Repository (Delft University of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › AI in Service Interactions
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, artificial intelligence adoption, university students, trust in AI, perceived behavioral control, student engagement with AI
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
