INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CHANGES IN EDUCATION
Research Article
Aug 20, 2026 230 169

Acceptance of generative artificial intelligence among adults: A cross-sectional study of UTAUT-based dimensions and group differences

Eugenia Konti 1,
Konstantinos T. Kotsis 1 *
1 Department of Primary Education, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, GREECE* Corresponding Author
International Journal of Changes in Education, 4(1), 2027, em110, https://doi.org/10.29333/ijce/19185
Publication date: Aug 20, 2026
Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming important areas of human activity, yet adults’ acceptance of generative AI applications remains insufficiently understood. This cross-sectional study examined the acceptance of generative AI applications among 460 adults recruited through online convenience sampling. Data were collected using the generative artificial intelligence acceptance scale (GAIAS), a validated instrument based on dimensions derived from the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT). The scale comprised four dimensions: performance expectancy, effort expectancy, facilitating conditions, and social influence. Participants reported moderate to high overall acceptance of generative AI. Effort expectancy, reflecting perceived ease of use (PEOU), received the highest mean score, followed by performance expectancy, reflecting perceived usefulness (PU), whereas social influence received the lowest mean score. This descriptive pattern indicates that perceived usability and usefulness were rated more positively than perceived social influence within the present sample. After Holm-Bonferroni correction across the 25 primary comparisons, statistically significant group differences remained for age and educational level in overall generative AI acceptance, performance expectancy, and effort expectancy. No multiplicity-adjusted differences were identified according to gender, personal computer ownership, or previous computer training. The age- and education-related findings should not be interpreted as evidence of linear relationships, independent effects, or causation. Within this digitally connected convenience sample, the findings indicate that PEOU and PU were more prominent dimensions of generative AI acceptance than social influence. Age- and education-related group differences were also observed. However, the cross-sectional design, online convenience sampling, and marked subgroup imbalances limit causal interpretation and generalizability to the wider adult population. The findings may nevertheless inform the development of accessible generative AI tools and targeted digital-literacy initiatives.

KEYWORDS

generative artificial intelligence acceptance UTAUT GAIAS effort expectancy adult digital literacy

CITATION (APA)

Konti, E., & Kotsis, K. T. (2027). Acceptance of generative artificial intelligence among adults: A cross-sectional study of UTAUT-based dimensions and group differences. International Journal of Changes in Education, 4(1), em110. https://doi.org/10.29333/ijce/19185
Harvard
Konti, E., and Kotsis, K. T. (2027). Acceptance of generative artificial intelligence among adults: A cross-sectional study of UTAUT-based dimensions and group differences. International Journal of Changes in Education, 4(1), em110. https://doi.org/10.29333/ijce/19185
Vancouver
Konti E, Kotsis KT. Acceptance of generative artificial intelligence among adults: A cross-sectional study of UTAUT-based dimensions and group differences. International Journal of Changes in Education. 2027;4(1):em110. https://doi.org/10.29333/ijce/19185
AMA
Konti E, Kotsis KT. Acceptance of generative artificial intelligence among adults: A cross-sectional study of UTAUT-based dimensions and group differences. International Journal of Changes in Education. 2027;4(1), em110. https://doi.org/10.29333/ijce/19185
Chicago
Konti, Eugenia, and Konstantinos T. Kotsis. "Acceptance of generative artificial intelligence among adults: A cross-sectional study of UTAUT-based dimensions and group differences". International Journal of Changes in Education 2027 4 no. 1 (2027): em110. https://doi.org/10.29333/ijce/19185
MLA
Konti, Eugenia et al. "Acceptance of generative artificial intelligence among adults: A cross-sectional study of UTAUT-based dimensions and group differences". International Journal of Changes in Education, vol. 4, no. 1, 2027, em110. https://doi.org/10.29333/ijce/19185

REFERENCES

  1. Acemoglu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2020). Robots and jobs: Evidence from US labor markets. Journal of Political Economy, 128(6), 2188-2244. https://doi.org/10.1086/705716
  2. Adiguzel, T., Kaya, M. H., & Cansu, F. K. (2023). Revolutionizing education with AI: Exploring the transformative potential of ChatGPT. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(3), Article ep429. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13152
  3. Ball, C., Francis, J., Huang, K.-T., Kadylak, T., Cotten, S. R., & Rikard, R. V. (2019). The physical-digital divide: Exploring the social gap between digital natives and physical natives. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 38(8), 1167-1184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464817732518
  4. Benjamens, S., Dhunnoo, P., & Meskó, B. (2020). The state of artificial intelligence-based FDA-approved medical devices and algorithms: An online database. npj Digital Medicine, 3, Article 118. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-020-00324-0
  5. 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
  6. Chu, C. H., Nyrup, R., Leslie, K., Shi, J., Bianchi, A., Lyn, A., McNicholl, M., Khan, S., Rahimi, S., & Grenier, A. (2022). Digital ageism: Challenges and opportunities in artificial intelligence for older adults. The Gerontologist, 62(7), 947-955. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnab167
  7. Circiumaru, A. (2021). Futureproofing EU law: The case of algorithmic discrimination. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3953627
  8. Czaja, S. J., & Ceruso, M. (2022). The promise of artificial intelligence in supporting an aging population. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 16(4), 182-193. https://doi.org/10.1177/15553434221129914
  9. Darko, A., Chan, A. P. C., Adabre, M. A., Edwards, D. J., Hosseini, M. R., & Ameyaw, E. E. (2020). Artificial intelligence in the AEC industry: Scientometric analysis and visualization of research activities. Automation in Construction, 112, Article 103081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103081
  10. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
  11. European Commission. (2018). Artificial intelligence for Europe (COM(2018) 237 final). European Commission. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2018:237:FIN
  12. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley.
  13. Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 254-280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.019
  14. Gerlich, M. (2023). Perceptions and acceptance of artificial intelligence: A multi-dimensional study. Social Sciences, 12(9), Article 502. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12090502
  15. Ghorayeb, A., Comber, R., & Gooberman-Hill, R. (2021). Older adults’ perspectives of smart home technology: Are we developing the technology that older people want? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 147, Article 102571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102571
  16. Gillespie, N., Lockey, S., & Curtis, C. (2021). Trust in artificial intelligence: A five country study. The University of Queensland and KPMG Australia. https://doi.org/10.14264/e34bfa3
  17. Gursoy, D., Chi, O. H., Lu, L., & Nunkoo, R. (2019). Consumers acceptance of artificially intelligent (AI) device use in service delivery. International Journal of Information Management, 49, 157-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.03.008
  18. Karaoglan Yilmaz, F. G., Yilmaz, R., & Ceylan, M. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence acceptance scale: A validity and reliability study. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 40(24), 8703-8715. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2288730
  19. Kashive, N., Powale, L., & Kashive, K. (2020). Understanding user perception toward artificial intelligence (AI) enabled e-learning. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 38(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-05-2020-0090
  20. Kelly, S., Kaye, S.-A., & Oviedo-Trespalacios, O. (2023). What factors contribute to the acceptance of artificial intelligence? A systematic review. Telematics and Informatics, 77, Article 101925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2022.101925
  21. Kirlidog, M., & Kaynak, A. (2011). Technology acceptance model and determinants of technology rejection. International Journal of Information Systems and Social Change, 2(4), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.4018/jissc.2011100101
  22. Kostick-Quenet, K. M., & Gerke, S. (2022). AI in the hands of imperfect users. npj Digital Medicine, 5, Article 197. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-022-00737-z
  23. Kotsis, K. T. (2024a). Artificial intelligence helps primary school teachers to plan and execute physics classroom experiments. EIKI Journal of Effective Teaching Methods, 2(2), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.59652/jetm.v2i2.158
  24. Kotsis, K. T. (2024b). Integration of artificial intelligence in science teaching in primary education: Applications for teachers. European Journal of Contemporary Education and E-Learning, 2(3), 27-43. https://doi.org/10.59324/ejceel.2024.2(3).04
  25. Kotsis, K. T. (2024c). The scientific literacy enables policymakers to legislate on artificial intelligence. European Journal of Political Science Studies, 7(1), 69-81. https://doi.org/10.46827/ejpss.v7i1.1682
  26. Kotsis, K. T. (2025a). Artificial intelligence as a catalyst for changes in university-level science education. EIKI Journal of Effective Teaching Methods, 3(3), 99-109. https://doi.org/10.59652/jetm.v3i3.618
  27. Kotsis, K. T. (2025b). Integrating artificial intelligence into higher education curricula: Challenges and opportunities for science-based programs. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence Engineering and Transformation, 6(1), 04-12. https://doi.org/10.54660/IJAIET.2025.6.1.04-12
  28. Kotsis, K. T. (2025c). Misconceptions about artificial intelligence from preservice teachers: A literature review. EIKI Journal of Effective Teaching Methods, 3(2), 199-208. https://doi.org/10.59652/jetm.v3i2.565
  29. Kotsis, K. T. (2026). Artificial intelligence in science education: An integrative review of personalized learning, ethics, and policy challenges. Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Technological Development, 2(1), 61-68. https://doi.org/10.59324/jaitd.2026.2(1).06
  30. Leslie, D., Burr, C., Aitken, M., Cowls, J., Katell, M., & Briggs, M. (2021). Artificial intelligence, human rights, democracy, and the rule of law: A primer. Council of Europe and The Alan Turing Institute. https://edoc.coe.int/en/artificial-intelligence/10206-artificial-intelligence-human-rights-democracy-and-the-rule-of-law-a-primer.html
  31. Lin, C.-Y., & Xu, N. (2022). Extended TAM model to explore the factors that affect intention to use AI robotic architects for architectural design. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 34(3), 349-362. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2021.1900808
  32. Luan, H., Geczy, P., Lai, H., Gobert, J., Yang, S. J. H., Ogata, H., Baltes, J., Guerra, R., Li, P., & Tsai, C.-C. (2020). Challenges and future directions of big data and artificial intelligence in education. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.580820
  33. Lunney, A., Cunningham, N. R., & Eastin, M. S. (2016). Wearable fitness technology: A structural investigation into acceptance and perceived fitness outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 114-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.007
  34. Mahesh, B. (2020). Machine learning algorithms – A review. International Journal of Science and Research, 9(1), 381-386. https://doi.org/10.21275/ART20203995
  35. McCarthy, J. (2007). What is AI? Stanford University. http://jmc.stanford.edu/articles/whatisai.html
  36. McLean, G., & Osei-Frimpong, K. (2019). Hey Alexa … examine the variables influencing the use of artificial intelligent in-home voice assistants. Computers in Human Behavior, 99, 28-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.05.009
  37. Mena-Guacas, A. F., Urueña Rodríguez, J. A., Santana Trujillo, D. M., Gómez-Galán, J., & López-Meneses, E. (2023). Collaborative learning and skill development for educational growth of artificial intelligence: A systematic review. Contemporary Educational Technology, 15(3), Article ep428. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/13123
  38. Nagarhalli, T. P., Vaze, V., & Rana, N. K. (2021). Impact of machine learning in natural language processing: A review. In Proceedings of the 2021 3rd International Conference on Intelligent Communication Technologies and Virtual Mobile Networks (pp. 1529-1534). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICICV50876.2021.9388380
  39. Neudert, L.-M., Knuutila, A., & Howard, P. N. (2020). Global attitudes towards AI, machine learning & automated decision making: Implications for involving artificial intelligence in public service and good governance (working paper no. 2020.10). Oxford Commission on AI & Good Governance. https://oxcaigg.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2020/10/GlobalAttitudesTowardsAIMachineLearning2020.pdf
  40. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  41. OECD. (2019). Artificial intelligence in society. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/eedfee77-en
  42. Omohundro, S. (2014). Autonomous technology and the greater human good. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 26(3), 303-315. https://doi.org/10.1080/0952813X.2014.895111
  43. Ongsulee, P. (2017). Artificial intelligence, machine learning and deep learning. In Proceedings of the 2017 15th International Conference on ICT and Knowledge Engineering (pp. 1-6). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICTKE.2017.8259629
  44. Park, J., Hong, E., & Le, H. T. (2021). Adopting autonomous vehicles: The moderating effects of demographic variables. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 63, Article 102687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102687
  45. Rafique, H., Almagrabi, A. O., Shamim, A., Anwar, F., & Bashir, A. K. (2020). Investigating the acceptance of mobile library applications with an extended technology acceptance model (TAM). Computers & Education, 145, Article 103732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103732
  46. Sallam, M. (2023). ChatGPT utility in healthcare education, research, and practice: Systematic review on the promising perspectives and valid concerns. Healthcare, 11(6), Article 887. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11060887
  47. Sohn, K., & Kwon, O. (2020). Technology acceptance theories and factors influencing artificial intelligence-based intelligent products. Telematics and Informatics, 47, Article 101324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2019.101324
  48. Soori, M., Arezoo, B., & Dastres, R. (2023). Machine learning and artificial intelligence in CNC machine tools: A review. Sustainable Manufacturing and Service Economics, 2, Article 100009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smse.2023.100009
  49. Tai, M. C.-T. (2020). The impact of artificial intelligence on human society and bioethics. Tzu Chi Medical Journal, 32(4), 339-343. https://doi.org/10.4103/tcmj.tcmj_71_20
  50. Thomas, T. D., Singh, L., & Gaffar, K. (2013). The utility of the UTAUT model in explaining mobile learning adoption in higher education in Guyana. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 9(3), 71-85.
  51. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
  52. Vrontis, D., Christofi, M., Pereira, V., Tarba, S., Makrides, A., & Trichina, E. (2022). Artificial intelligence, robotics, advanced technologies and human resource management: A systematic review. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 33(6), 1237-1266. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2020.1871398
  53. Wong, A. K. C., Lee, J. H. T., Zhao, Y., Lu, Q., Yang, S., & Hui, V. C. C. (2025). Exploring older adults’ perspectives and acceptance of AI-driven health technologies: Qualitative study. JMIR Aging, 8, Article e66778. https://doi.org/10.2196/66778
  54. Zerilli, J., Bhatt, U., & Weller, A. (2022). How transparency modulates trust in artificial intelligence. Patterns, 3(4), Article 100455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2022.100455

LICENSE

Creative Commons License
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.