Keywords
Technology Acceptance Model
Perceived Usefulness
Perceived Ease of Use
Subjective Norm
Higher Education Institutions
How to Cite
Abstract
While existing research has identified key determinants of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen-AI) tool usage by Higher Education Institution (HEI) teachers, the moderating effects of individual characteristics such as gender and age remain underexplored. Many studies assume a homogeneous population, thereby overlooking the diverse behavioral intentions and technology perceptions among individuals, particularly in the context of higher education.
This study addresses this critical gap by examining how gender and age influence the relationships between perceived utility, perceived ease of use, attitude, and subjective norms on HEI teachers' intention to adopt Gen-AI tools. By integrating these moderating factors within the frameworks of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), this research offers a nuanced understanding of the differential impacts of gender and age on technology adoption.
The findings of this study contribute significantly to the Gen-AI literature by highlighting the importance of considering individual differences in demographic characteristics when investigating technology adoption behaviors. Specifically, the study reveals that gender and age not only affect the direct determinants of Gen-AI tool usage but also moderate the strength and direction of these relationships. For instance, younger teachers may perceive Gen-AI tools as more useful and easier to use compared to their older counterparts.
Practically, the study provides HEI practitioners with actionable recommendations to enhance the management and utilization of Gen-AI tools among diverse user groups. By acknowledging and addressing the unique needs and preferences of different demographic segments, HEIs can foster a more inclusive and effective adoption of Gen-AI tools. This, in turn, can lead to improved teaching and learning outcomes, as well as greater overall satisfaction with technology integration in educational settings.
In conclusion, this research underscores the necessity of incorporating gender and age as critical moderating variables in studies of technology adoption. By doing so, it offers valuable insights for educators, policymakers, and researchers aiming to promote the effective and equitable use of Gen-AI tools in higher education.
References
[1] J. Nevárez Montes and J. Elizondo-Garcia, “Faculty acceptance and use of generative artificial intelligence in their practice,” Front Educ (Lausanne), vol. 10, Feb. 2025, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2025.1427450. (in English)
[2] K. Kavitha and V. P. Joshith, “Artificial Intelligence Powered Pedagogy: Unveiling Higher Educators’ Acceptance with Extended TAM,” Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice , vol. 21, no. 8, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.53761/s1pkk784. (in English)
[3] H. Crompton and D. Burke, “Artificial intelligence in higher education: the state of the field,” International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, vol. 20, no. 1, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.1186/s41239-023-00392-8. (in English)
[4] M. Bearman, J. Ryan, and R. Ajjawi, “Discourses of artificial intelligence in higher education: a critical literature review,” Aug. 01, 2023, Springer Science and Business Media B.V. doi: 10.1007/s10734-022-00937-2. (in English)
[5] P. Bhaskar, P. Misra, and G. Chopra, “Shall I use ChatGPT? A study on perceived trust and perceived risk towards ChatGPT usage by teachers at higher education institutions,” International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, Aug. 2024, doi: 10.1108/IJILT-11-2023-0220/FULL/HTML. (in English)
[6] L. Guan, Y. Zhang, and M. M. Gu, “Pre-service teachers preparedness for AI-integrated education: An investigation from perceptions, capabilities, and teachers’ identity changes,” Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, vol. 8, p. 100341, Jun. 2025, doi: 10.1016/J.CAEAI.2024.100341. (in English)
[7] F. A. B. Habib, “Unveiling the role of educators attitudes & intention toward artificial intelligence in teaching: A multi-dimensional analysis,” Educ Inf Technol (Dordr), Jan. 2025, doi: 10.1007/s10639-024-13271-0. (in English)
[8] H. Lu, L. He, H. Yu, T. Pan, and K Fu, “A Study on Teachers’ Willingness to Use Generative AI Technology and Its Influencing Factors: Based on an Integrated Model,” Sustainability, no. 16, 2024, Accessed: Sep. 22, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/16/7216 (in English)
[9] M. A. Enam, C. Murmu, and E. Dixon, “Artificial Intelligence – Carrying us into the Future: A Study of Older Adults’ Perceptions of LLM-Based Chatbots,” International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, vol. 41, no. 7, pp. 1–17, 2025, doi: 10.1080/10447318.2025.2476710. (in English)
[10] G. Assaker, “Age and gender differences in online travel reviews and user-generated-content (UGC) adoption: extending the technology acceptance model (TAM) with credibility theory,” Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 428–449, May 2020, doi: 10.1080/19368623.2019.1653807. (in English)
[11] S. Kelly, S. A. Kaye, and O. Oviedo-Trespalacios, “What factors contribute to the acceptance of artificial intelligence? A systematic review,” Telematics and Informatics, vol. 77, p. 101925, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.1016/J.TELE.2022.101925. (in English)
[12] I. Hidayat-ur-Rehman and Y. Ibrahim, “Exploring factors influencing educators’ adoption of ChatGPT: a mixed method approach,” Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 2023, doi: 10.1108/ITSE-07-2023-0127. (in English)
[13] Y. Shen and H Guo, “‘I Feel AI is neither too good nor too bad’: Unveiling Chinese EFL Teachers’ Perceived Emotions in Generative AI-Mediated L2 Classes,” Comput Human Behav, 2024, Accessed: Sep. 22, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563224002978(in English)
[14] A. Strzelecki, K. Cicha, M. Rizun, and P. Rutecka, “Acceptance and use of ChatGPT in the academic community,” Educ Inf Technol (Dordr), 2024, doi: 10.1007/S10639-024-12765-1. (in English)
[15] A. Yayla and Q. Hu, “User acceptance of e-commerce technology: A meta-analytic comparison of competing models,” in ECIS 2007 Proceedings, AIS Electronic Library, Ed., ECIS, 2007. Accessed: Feb. 11, 2025. [Online]. Available: http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2007/5(in English)
[16] F. D. Davis, “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 319–340, 1989, doi: 10.2307/249008. (in English)
[17] M. Fishbein and I. Ajzen, “Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research,” Massachusetts, Addison-Wiley Publishing Company, 1975. (in English)
[18] D. Ma, H. Akram, and H. Chen, “Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education: A Cross-Cultural Examination of Students’ Behavioral Intentions and Attitudes,” The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 134–157, Aug. 2024, doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v25i3.7703. (in English)
[19] C. Wang, H. Wang, Y. Li, and J. Dai, “Factors Influencing University Students’ Behavioral Intention to Use Generative Artificial Intelligence: Integrating the Theory of Planned Behavior and AI Literacy,” Int J Hum Comput Interact, 2024, doi: 10.1080/10447318.2024.2383033. (in English)
[20] S. Ivanov, M. Soliman, A. Tuomi, N. A. Alkathiri, and A. N. Al-Alawi, “Drivers of generative AI adoption in higher education through the lens of the Theory of Planned Behaviour,” Technol Soc, vol. 77, p. 102521, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102521. (in English)
[21] F. D. Davis, R. P. Bagozzi, and P. R. Warshaw, “User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models,” Management Science, vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 982–1003, Aug. 1989, doi: 10.1287/MNSC.35.8.982. (in English)
[22] K. Wang, Q. Ruan, X. Zhang, C. Fu, and B Duan, “Pre-Service Teachers’ GenAI Anxiety, Technology Self-Efficacy, and TPACK: Their Structural Relations with Behavioral Intention to Design GenAI-Assisted,” Behavioral Sciences, 2024, Accessed: Sep. 22, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/14/5/373(in English)
[23] V. Venkatesh and F. D. Davis, “A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies,” Management Science, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 186–204, Feb. 2000, doi: 10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926. (in English)
[24] H. Ramkissoon and R. Nunkoo, “More than Just Biological Sex Differences,” http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1096348010388662, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 191–215, Nov. 2010, doi: 10.1177/1096348010388662. (in English)
[25] P. P. Lynott and N. Jane Mccandless, “The impact of age vs. life experience on the gender role attitudes of women in different cohorts,” J Women Aging, vol. 12, no. 1–2, pp. 5–21, 2000, doi: 10.1300/J074V12N01_02. (in English)
[26] M. Jacques and G. Osman, “The role of gender and education on decision-making,” Studies in Business and Economics, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 117–130, Dec. 2019, doi: 10.2478/SBE-2019-0048. (in English)
[27] E. Fiorenzato, P. Bisiacchi, and G. Cona, “Gender differences in the effects of emotion induction on intertemporal decision-making,” PLoS One, vol. 19, no. 3, p. e0299591, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0299591. (in English)
[28] G. W. H. Tan and K. B. Ooi, “Gender and age: Do they really moderate mobile tourism shopping behavior?,” Telematics and Informatics, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 1617–1642, Sep. 2018, doi: 10.1016/J.TELE.2018.04.009. (in English)
[29] M. Amin, S. Rezaei, and F. S. Tavana, “Gender differences and consumer’s repurchase intention: The impact of trust propensity, usefulness and ease of use for implication of innovative online retail,” International Journal of Innovation and Learning, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 217–233, 2015, doi: 10.1504/IJIL.2015.067409. (in English)
[30] J. (Sunny) Kim, “An extended technology acceptance model in behavioral intention toward hotel tablet apps with moderating effects of gender and age,” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 1535–1553, Aug. 2016, doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-06-2015-0289/FULL/XML. (in English)
[31] H. E. Mandari and Y. L. Chong, “Gender and age differences in rural farmers’ intention to use m-government services,” Electronic Government, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 217–239, 2018, doi: 10.1504/EG.2018.093406. (in English)
[32] P. Acheampong, L. Zhiwen, K. K. Hiran, O. E. Serwaa, F. Boateng, and I. A. Bediako, “Examining the Intervening Role of Age and Gender on mobile payment Acceptance in Ghana: UTAUT Model,” Canadian Journal of Applied Science and Technology, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 141–151, 2018, Accessed: Feb. 11, 2025. [Online]. Available: http://onlinejournal.org.uk/index.php/cajast/index(in English)
[33] A. Tarhini, K. Hone, and X. Liu, “Measuring the moderating effect of gender and age on E-learning acceptance in England: A structural equation modeling approach for an extended Technology Acceptance Model,” Journal of Educational Computing Research, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 163–184, Sep. 2014, doi: 10.2190/EC.51.2.B. (in English)
[34] J. Fang, C. Wen, B. George, and V. R. Prybutok, “Consumer heterogeneity, perceived value, and repurchase decision-making in online shopping: the role of gender, age, and shopping motives,” Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 116–131, 2016. (in English)
[35] C. M. K. Cheung, B. S. Xiao, and I. L. B. Liu, “Do actions speak louder than voices? The signaling role of social information cues in influencing consumer purchase decisions,” Decis Support Syst, vol. 65, no. C, pp. 50–58, Sep. 2014, doi: 10.1016/J.DSS.2014.05.002. (in English)
[36] F. Liébana-Cabanillas, J. Sánchez-Fernández, and F. Muñoz-Leiva, “Antecedents of the adoption of the new mobile payment systems: The moderating effect of age,” Comput Human Behav, vol. 35, pp. 464–478, Jun. 2014, doi: 10.1016/J.CHB.2014.03.022. (in English)
[37] MCIU, “Estadística de personal de las universidades,” Madrid, 2024. Accessed: Oct. 12, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://public.tableau.com/views/EPU22_23/Infografia?%3AshowVizHome=no&%3Aembed=true#2(in Spanish)
[38] W. W. Chin, “The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling,” in Modern methods for business research, no. 2, G. A. Marcoulides, Ed., London, 1998, pp. 295–336. (in English)
[39] G. Marakas, R. Johnson, and P. F. Clay, “The evolving nature of the computer self-efficacy construct: An empirical investigation of measurement construction, validity, reliability and stability over time.,” J Assoc Inf Syst, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 2, 2007. (in English)
[40] F. J. Miranda González, F. Vega Gomez, A. Chamorro-Mera, and J. Perez-Mayo, “Intention to Use Web 2.0 Teaching Tools: Evidence from Italian Universities after the COVID-19 Pandemic,” The International Journal of Learning in Higher Education, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 121–139, 2023, doi: 10.18848/2327-7955/CGP/v30i02/121-139. (in English)
[41] J. Hulland, “Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies,” Strategic Management Journal, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 195–204, 1999. (in English)
[42] E. G. Carmine and R. A. Zeller, Reliability and Validity Assessment [Quantitative Applications in Social Sciences]. Newbury Park: Sage, 1979. (in English)
[43] J. C. Nunnally, Psychometric Theory. New York, 1978. (in English)
[44] C. Fornell and D. F. Larcker, “Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics,” 1981, SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA. (in English)
[45] D. Barclay, C. Higgins, and R. Thompson, “The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling: Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration,” Technology studies, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 285–309, 1995. (in English)
[46] S. Petter, D. Straub, and A. Rai, “Specifying Formative Constructs in Information Systems Research,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 31, pp. 623–656, 2007, doi: 10.2307/25148814. (in English)
[47] R. F. Falk and N. B. Miller, A primer for soft modeling. University of Akron Press, 1992. (in English)
[48] J. Henseler, C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt, “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling,” J Acad Mark Sci, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 115–135, 2015. (in English)
[49] M. Hair, J., Hult, G., Ringle, C., Sarstedt, A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications., 2016. (in English)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2025 F. Javier Miranda, Antonio Chamorro-Mera