Drivers of Generative AI Adoption in Higher Education: A fsQCA Study on Student Motivations and Technology Perceptions

Rongjing Yuan

doi:10.71222/w80kh941

Authors

Rongjing Yuan Swan College, Central South University of Forestry and Technology, Changsha, Hunan, China Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.71222/w80kh941

Keywords:

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI), higher education, motivations, technology adoption, fsQCA (Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis)

Abstract

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) is reshaping higher education, yet the drivers of students' continuance intention in academic contexts remain underexplored. Building on the Rich Intrinsic Motivation (RIM) framework and technology adoption theories, this study investigates the configurational effects of intrinsic motivations (accomplishment, knowledge, stimulation), extrinsic motivation (perceived usefulness), and technology characteristics (ease of use, novelty) on GenAI adoption. Using Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) on data from 238 university students, the study reveals that no single factor is necessary for adoption. Instead, four distinct sufficient configurations drive high continuance intention: (1) "Happy Achievers" (Hedonic-Mastery), (2) "Curious Explorers" (Hedonic-Knowledge), (3) "Conquerors" (Pure Mastery), and (4) "Determined Strivers" (Utilitarian-Striving). These findings highlight the complex interplay between motivational and technological factors, offering tailored insights for educators to foster sustainable GenAI integration in learning.

References

1. L. Reiter, M. Jörling, C. Fuchs, and B. Working group 'Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education', "Student (Mis) Use of Generative AI Tools for University-Related Tasks," International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 1-14, 2025.

2. V. Wolf, and C. Maier, "ChatGPT usage in everyday life: A motivation-theoretic mixed-methods study," International Journal of Information Management, vol. 79, p. 102821, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2024.102821

3. M. A. Rahmadi, D. U. Susilo, R. Widyani, and D. R. Wiradinata, "THE USE OF GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) FOR UNIVERSITY STUDENTS," Jurnal Abdisci, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 142-153, 2025.

4. J. E. Perez Perez, "The application of Gen-AI and creativity in the context of public education in frontier environments," Journal of Enabling Technologies, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 223-231, 2024. doi: 10.1108/jet-05-2024-0030

5. I. Hou, H. V. Nguyen, O. Man, and S. MacNeil, "The Evolving Usage of GenAI by Computing Students," In Proceedings of the 56th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 2, February, 2025, pp. 1481-1482. doi: 10.1145/3641555.3705266

6. A. L. Miller, "AI Assisted Learning: A tool or a threat?," Journal of e-learning Research, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 52-65, 2023.

7. A. Bhattacherjee, "Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model," MIS quarterly, pp. 351-370, 2001.

8. X. Li, J. P. A. Hsieh, and A. Rai, "Motivational differences across post-acceptance information system usage behaviors: An investigation in the business intelligence systems context," Information systems research, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 659-682, 2013.

9. F. D. Davis, R. P. Bagozzi, and P. R. Warshaw, "Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace 1," Journal of applied social psychology, vol. 22, no. 14, pp. 1111-1132, 1992.

10. W. Hong, F. K. Chan, J. Y. Thong, L. C. Chasalow, and G. Dhillon, "A framework and guidelines for context-specific theorizing in information systems research," Information systems research, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 111-136, 2014.

11. V. Venkatesh, M. G. Morris, G. B. Davis, and F. D. Davis, "User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view," MIS quarterly, pp. 425-478, 2003.

12. J. D. Wells, D. E. Campbell, J. S. Valacich, and M. Featherman, "The effect of perceived novelty on the adoption of information technology innovations: a risk/reward perspective," Decision Sciences, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 813-843, 2010. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5915.2010.00292.x

13. D. Scarpi, I. Confente, and I. Russo, "The impact of tourism on residents' intention to stay," A qualitative comparative analysis. Annals of tourism research, vol. 97, p. 103472, 2022.

14. I. O. Pappas, and A. G. Woodside, "Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA): Guidelines for research practice in Information Systems and marketing," International journal of information management, vol. 58, p. 102310, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102310

15. C. C. Ragin, "Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond," University of Chicago press, 2009.

16. J. Mattke, C. Maier, T. Weitzel, and J. B. Thatcher, "Qualitative comparative analysis in the information systems discipline: a literature review and methodological recommendations," Internet Research, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 1493-1517, 2021. doi: 10.1108/intr-09-2020-0529

17. A. Beaudry, and A. Pinsonneault, "Understanding user responses to information technology: A coping model of user adaptation," MIS quarterly, pp. 493-524, 2005.

18. A. K. Przybylski, K. Murayama, C. R. DeHaan, and V. Gladwell, "Motivational, emotional, and behavioral correlates of fear of missing out," Computers in human behavior, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 1841-1848, 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.014