Utilitarian vs Human-Centered AI Acceptance: Explaining Students’ Adoption of ChatGPT in Higher Education

Dwi Angesti Dinda Parameswara; Berlilana Berlilana; Rujianto Eko Saputro

doi:10.29408/edumatic.v10i1.34218

Authors

Dwi Angesti Dinda Parameswara Universitas Amikom Purwokerto
Berlilana Berlilana Universitas Amikom Purwokerto
Rujianto Eko Saputro Universitas Amikom Purwokerto

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29408/edumatic.v10i1.34218

Keywords:

behavioral intention, chatgpt, higher education, human-centered AI, technology acceptance model

Abstract

The growing use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in higher education raises questions about how students assess and adopt these systems, particularly whether traditional utilitarian models are sufficient to explain their use. This study compares the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and the Human-Centered AI Acceptance Model (HCAIAM) in explaining students’ behavioral intention to use ChatGPT, while examining how functional and human-centered factors operate within the same framework. A cross-sectional design was used, involving 100 undergraduate students in Indonesia selected through convenience sampling, and the data were analyzed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). The results show that TAM provides stronger explanatory power and better model fit (R² = 0.765; SRMR = 0.073) than HCAIAM (R² = 0.709; SRMR = 0.136). Perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use emerge as the main drivers of intention, indicating that students tend to use ChatGPT primarily as a tool to support academic tasks. In contrast, human-centered factors such as transparency and ethical alignment influence intention indirectly through trust and attitude. The autonomy construct shows weak reliability and overlaps with other variables, suggesting limitations in its measurement. These findings indicate that utilitarian factors remain central in this context, while human-centered aspects play a more conditional role, and point to a layered pattern of AI acceptance in which different types of factors operate at different levels.

References

Adam, M., Diebel, C., Goutier, M., & Benlian, A. (2024). Navigating autonomy and control in human-AI delegation: User responses to technology-versus user-invoked task allocation. Decision Support Systems, 180, 114193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2024.114193

Baidoo-Anu, D., & Ansah, L. O. (2023). Education in the Era of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI): Understanding the Potential Benefits of ChatGPT in Promoting Teaching and Learning. Journal of AI, 7(1), 52–62. https://doi.org/10.61969/jai.1337500

Bevilacqua, R., Bailoni, T., Maranesi, E., Amabili, G., Barbarossa, F., Ponzano, M., ... & Sakellariou, G. (2025). Framing the human-centered artificial intelligence concepts and methods: Scoping review. JMIR Human Factors, 12, e67350. https://doi.org/10.2196/67350

Bouyzourn, K., & Birch, A. (2025). What Shapes User Trust in ChatGPT? A Mixed-Methods Study of User Attributes, Trust Dimensions, Task Context, and Societal Perceptions among University Students. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.05046.

Choung, H., David, P., & Ross, A. (2023). Trust in AI and Its Role in the Acceptance of AI Technologies. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 39(9), 1727–1739. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2050543

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences Second Edition (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cotton, D. R. E., Cotton, P. A., & Shipway, J. R. (2024). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 61(2), 228–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 13(3), 319–339. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

Denecke, K., Glauser, R., & Reichenpfader, D. (2023). Assessing the Potential and Risks of AI-Based Tools in Higher Education: Results from an eSurvey and SWOT Analysis. Trends in Higher Education, 2(4), 667–688. https://doi.org/10.3390/higheredu2040039

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., Balakrishnan, 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 Information Management, 71, 102642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642

Fetaji, B., Fetaji, M., Ebibi, M., & Dimovski, A. (2024). Analyzing and Visualizing AI Decision-Making for Human-Centered Interaction and Trust. International Symposium on Signal and Image Processing, 77-89. Singapore: Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-9515-4_6

Fuchs, A., Passarella, A., & Conti, M. (2024). Optimizing delegation in collaborative human-AI hybrid teams. ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems, 19(4), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1145/3687130

Gill, S. S., Xu, M., Patros, P., Wu, H., Kaur, R., Kaur, K., Fuller, S., Singh, M., Arora, P., Parlikad, A. K., Stankovski, V., Abraham, A., Ghosh, S. K., Lutfiyya, H., Kanhere, S. S., Bahsoon, R., Rana, O., Dustdar, S., Sakellariou, R., … Buyya, R. (2024). Transformative effects of ChatGPT on modern education: Emerging Era of AI Chatbots. Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems, 4, 19–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iotcps.2023.06.002

Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). In Sage (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.

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

Hasan, R., Ismail, N., Rahman, H., & Bin, A. (2024). Computers in Human Behavior : Artificial Humans Understanding AI Chatbot adoption in education : PLS-SEM analysis of user behavior factors. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 2, 100098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2024.100098

Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., Gasser, U., Groh, G., Günnemann, S., Hüllermeier, E., Krusche, S., Kutyniok, G., Michaeli, T., Nerdel, C., Pfeffer, J., Poquet, O., Sailer, M., Schmidt, A., Seidel, T., … Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102274

Khosravi, H., Shum, S. B., Chen, G., Conati, C., Tsai, Y. S., Kay, J., Knight, S., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Sadiq, S., & Gašević, D. (2022). Explainable Artificial Intelligence in education. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100074

Lai, C. Y., Cheung, K. Y., Chan, C. S., & Law, K. K. (2024). Integrating the adapted UTAUT model with moral obligation, trust and perceived risk to predict ChatGPT adoption for assessment support: A survey with students. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, 100246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100246

Nzenwata, U. J., Barn-Nzekwe, C. L., Ojelabi, E. O., Oduware, O., Atalor, P. E., Yisau, Y., Adeyela, A. T., Nwanguma, E. C., Emokiniovo, E., & Osisanya, O. A. (2024). A Systematic Review of Generative AI in Education. Journal of Computer Sciences and Applications, 12(1), 25–30. https://doi.org/10.12691/jcsa-12-1-4

Polyportis, A., & Pahos, N. (2025). Understanding students’ adoption of the ChatGPT chatbot in higher education: the role of anthropomorphism, trust, design novelty and institutional policy. Behaviour and Information Technology, 44(2), 315–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2024.2317364

Sallam, M., Salim, N. A., Barakat, M., Al-Mahzoum, K., Al-Tammemi, A. B., Malaeb, D., Hallit, R., & Hallit, S. (2023). Assessing Health Students’ Attitudes and Usage of ChatGPT in Jordan: Validation Study. JMIR Medical Education, 9(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.2196/48254

Schmager, S., Pappas, I. O., & Vassilakopoulou, P. (2025). Understanding Human-Centred AI: a review of its defining elements and a research agenda. Behaviour & Information Technology, 44(15), 3771-3810. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2024.2448719

Shahzad, M. F., Xu, S., & Javed, I. (2024). ChatGPT awareness, acceptance, and adoption in higher education: the role of trust as a cornerstone. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-024-00478-x

Shin, D. (2021). The effects of explainability and causability on perception, trust, and acceptance: Implications for explainable AI. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 146, 102551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102551

Venkatesh, V., Walton, S. M., & Thong, J. Y. L. (2012). Quarterly Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Technology: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology1. MIS Quarterly, 36, 157–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412

Yan, L., Sha, L., Zhao, L., Li, Y., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Chen, G., Li, X., Jin, Y., & Gašević, D. (2024). Practical and ethical challenges of large language models in education: A systematic scoping review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(1), 90–112. John Wiley and Sons Inc. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13370

Zhu, C. Z. G., Hall, C. M., Fong, L. H. N., Lin, F., & Naderi Koupaei, S. (2024). Examining the effects of ChatGPT on tourism and hospitality student responses through integrating technology acceptance model. International Journal of Tourism Research, 26(4), e2727. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2727