VOlUME 05 ISSUE 05 May 2026
Phan Tri Nghia
Thu Dau Mot University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
DOI : https://doi.org/10.58806/ijsshmr.2026.v5i5n08Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT
This study investigates the factors influencing Vietnamese university students' behavioral intention to adopt generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools for academic purposes. By integrating the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), the study proposes an extended framework incorporating perceived enjoyment and AI anxiety as additional determinants, with AI literacy as a potential moderator. A quantitative cross-sectional survey was conducted with 418 undergraduate students from public universities in Vietnam. Data were analyzed using SPSS 26.0, employing exploratory factor analysis (EFA), reliability analysis, Pearson correlation, hierarchical multiple regression, and moderation analysis.The results reveal that performance expectancy (β = 0.233, p < 0.001), social influence (β = 0.267, p < 0.001), perceived enjoyment (β = 0.250, p < 0.001), effort expectancy (β = 0.092, p < 0.05), and facilitating conditions (β = 0.088, p < 0.05) significantly predict behavioral intention toward GenAI tools. AI anxiety shows a marginally negative but non-significant effect (β = –0.072, p = 0.065). Behavioral intention significantly predicts actual use (β = 0.434, p < 0.001). AI literacy does not significantly moderate the relationships between key predictors and behavioral intention. This study contributes to the emerging literature on GenAI adoption in higher education by integrating TAM and UTAUT with context-specific variables in the Vietnamese educational setting. The findings provide practical implications for educators and policymakers seeking to facilitate responsible GenAI integration in academic environments.
KEYWORDS:Generative AI; ChatGPT; Technology adoption; TAM; UTAUT; Higher education; Vietnam; AI literacy; Behavioral intention
REFERENCES
1) Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage Publications.
2) 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.
3) Chan, C. K. Y., & Hu, W. (2023). Students’ voices on generative AI: Perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 43.
4) Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
5) Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14), 1111–1132.
6) Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L., Ismagilova, E., Aarts, G., Coombs, C., Crick, T., ... & Williams, M. D. (2019). Artificial intelligence (AI): Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 57, 101994.
7) Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., ... & Wright, R. (2023). Opinion paper: “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.
8) Government of Vietnam. (2020). Decision No. 749/QD-TTg: Approval of the National Digital Transformation Programme by 2025, with a vision to 2030.
9) Granić, A., & Marangunić, N. (2019). Technology acceptance model in educational context: A systematic literature review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2572–2593.
10) Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
11) Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
12) Kasneci, E., Sessler, K., Küchemann, S., Bannert, M., Dementieva, D., Fischer, F., ... & Kasneci, G. (2023). ChatGPT for good? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learning and Individual Differences, 103, 102274.
13) Kaya, F., Aydin, F., Schepman, A., Rodway, P., Yetişensoy, O., & Demir Kaya, M. (2024). The roles of personality traits, AI anxiety, and demographic factors in attitudes toward artificial intelligence. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 40(2), 497–514.
14) Le, T. D., & Truong, T. H. (2024). Factors affecting university students’ intention to use ChatGPT: Evidence from Vietnam. Journal of Information Systems Education, 35(2), 145–160.
15) Lim, W. M., Gunasekara, A., Pallant, J. L., Pallant, J. I., & Pechenkina, E. (2023). Generative AI and the future of education: Ragnarök or reformation? A paradoxical perspective from management educators. The International Journal of Management Education, 21(2), 100790.
16) Long, D., & Magerko, B. (2020). What is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–16). ACM.
17) Ng, D. T. K., Leung, J. K. L., Chu, S. K. W., & Qiao, M. S. (2021). Conceptualizing AI literacy: An exploratory review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100041.
18) Nguyen, T. H., Pham, D. T., & Tran, V. H. (2023). Digital transformation in Vietnamese higher education: Current status and challenges. Asia Pacific Education Review, 24(3), 321–335.
19) Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
20) Strzelecki, A. (2023). To use or not to use ChatGPT in higher education? A study of students’ acceptance and use of technology. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(8), 1–14.
21) Sullivan, M., Kelly, A., & McLaughlin, P. (2023). ChatGPT in higher education: Considerations for academic integrity and student learning. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 31–40.
22) 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.
23) Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178.
24) Wang, Y., Liu, C., & Tu, Y. F. (2024). Factors affecting the adoption of AI-based applications in higher education: An integration of ECM and UTAUT. Education and Information Technologies, 29(4), 4801–4823.
Cite this Article:Nghia, P. T. (2026). Factors Influencing University Students' Adoption of Generative AI Tools: An Integrated TAM-UTAUT Model in Vietnamese Higher Education. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE HUMANITY & MANAGEMENT RESEARCHS, 5(5), 977-985. https://doi.org/10.58806/ijsshmr.2026.v5i5n08