Exploring the Moderating Role of Information Security in College Students' Adoption of AI Chatbots

Xiangxiang Mei; Md. Gapar Md Johar; Jacquline Tham

doi:10.54097/78vrft25

Authors

Xiangxiang Mei
Md. Gapar Md Johar
Jacquline Tham

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/78vrft25

Keywords:

AI Chatbots, Intention to Use, Adoption, Information Security, Moderating Effect

Abstract

As the application of artificial intelligence (AI) in higher education becomes increasingly widespread, AI chatbots have gradually been adopted for routine learning tasks. While previous studies have linked user intention to actual adoption behaviour, the role of contextual factors such as information security (IS) remains under-explored. This study examines the direct impact of the intention to use AI chatbots (ITUAIC) on students' adoption of AI chatbots (SAAIC) and investigates the moderating role of perceived information security. Using SPSS and Amos to analyse survey data from college students, the results indicate that intention significantly predicts adoption behaviour, while IS has a positive moderating effect on this relationship. These findings advance research on the acceptance of AI chatbots and provide practical implications for the implementation of secure chatbots in the education sector.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Davar, N. F., Dewan, M. A. A., & Zhang, X. (2025). AI chatbots in education: challenges and opportunities. Information, 16(3), 235. https://doi.org/10.3390/info16030235.

[2] Tian, W., Ge, J., Zhao, Y., & Zheng, X. (2024). AI Chatbots in Chinese higher education: adoption, perception, and influence among graduate students-an integrated analysis utilizing UTAUT and ECM models. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1268549. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1268549.

[3] Ma, J., Wang, P., Li, B., Wang, T., Pang, X. S., & Wang, D. (2025). Exploring user adoption of ChatGPT: A technology acceptance model perspective. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 41(2), 1431-1445. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2024.2314358.

[4] Mukred, M., Asma’Mokhtar, U., Hawash, B., AlSalman, H., & Zohaib, M. (2024). The adoption and use of learning analytics tools to improve decision making in higher learning institutions: An extension of technology acceptance model. Heliyon, 10(4), e26315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e26315.

[5] Maheshwari, G. (2024). Factors influencing students' intention to adopt and use ChatGPT in higher education: A study in the Vietnamese context. Education and Information Technologies, 29(10), 12167-12195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12333-z.

[6] Alkhwaldi, A. F., Alidarous, M. M., & Alharasis, E. E. (2024). Antecedents and outcomes of innovative blockchain usage in accounting and auditing profession: an extended UTAUT model. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 37(5), 1102-1132. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-03-2023-0070.

[7] Yang, J., Chen, Y.-L., Por, L. Y., & Ku, C. S. (2023). A Systematic Literature Review of Information Security in Chatbots. Applied Sciences, 13(11), 6355. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13116355.

[8] Tao, W., Yang, J., & Qu, X. (2024). Utilization of, perceptions on, and intention to use AI chatbots among medical students in China: National Cross-sectional Study. JMIR medical education, 10(1), e57132. https://doi.org/10.2196/57132.

[9] Davis, F. D. (1989). Technology acceptance model: TAM. Al-Suqri, MN, Al-Aufi, AS: Information Seeking Behavior and Technology Adoption, 205(219), 5.

[10] Ursavaş, Ö.F. (2022). Technology Acceptance Model: History, Theory, and Application. In: Conducting Technology Acceptance Research in Education . Springer Texts in Education. Springer, Cham, 57-91. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10846-4_4.

[11] Wang, M., Chen, Z., Liu, Q., Peng, X., Long, T., & Shi, Y. (2025). Understanding teachers’ willingness to use artificial intelligence-based teaching analysis system: Extending TAM model with teaching efficacy, goal orientation, anxiety, and trust. Interactive Learning Environments, 33(2), 1180-1197. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2024.2365345.

[12] Mustofa, R. H., Kuncoro, T. G., Atmono, D., & Hermawan, H. D. (2025). Extending the technology acceptance model: The role of subjective norms, ethics, and trust in AI tool adoption among students. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 8, 100379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2025.100379.

[13] Balaskas, S., Tsiantos, V., Chatzifotiou, S., & Rigou, M. (2025). Determinants of ChatGPT Adoption Intention in Higher Education: Expanding on TAM with the Mediating Roles of Trust and Risk. Information, 16(2), 82. https://doi.org/10.3390/info16020082.

[14] Huang, Y., & Fung, D. (2024). Impact of AI chatbots on EFL learners’ technology adoption: An extension of the UTAUT2 model. Interaction Studies, 25(3), 340-368. https://doi.org/10.1075/is.24019.hua.

[15] Choudhury, A., & Shamszare, H. (2023). Investigating the impact of user trust on the adoption and use of ChatGPT: survey analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 25, e47184. https://doi.org/10.2196/47184.

[16] Yang, M., Mamun, A. A., Mohiuddin, M., Nawi, N. C., & Zainol, N. R. (2021). Cashless transactions: A study on intention and adoption of e-wallets. Sustainability, 13(2), 831. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020831.

[17] Strzelecki, A. (2024). To use or not to use ChatGPT in higher education? A study of students’ acceptance and use of technology. Interactive learning environments, 32(9), 5142-5155.https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2209881.

[18] Stöhr, C., Ou, A. W., & Malmström, H. (2024). Perceptions and usage of AI chatbots among students in higher education across genders, academic levels and fields of study. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 7, 100259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100259.

[19] Roca, M. D. L., Chan, M. M., Garcia‐Cabot, A., Garcia‐Lopez, E., & Amado‐Salvatierra, H. (2024). The impact of a chatbot working as an assistant in a course for supporting student learning and engagement. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 32(5), e22750. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22750.

[20] Al-kfairy, M. (2024). Factors impacting the adoption and acceptance of ChatGPT in educational settings: A narrative review of empirical studies. Applied System Innovation, 7(6), 110. https://doi.org/10.3390/asi7060110.

[21] Palanisamy, R., & Wu, Y. (2021). Users’ attitude on perceived security of enterprise systems mobility: an empirical study. Information & Computer Security, 29(1), 159-186. https://doi.org/10.1108/ICS-05-2020-0069.

[22] Famaye, T., Adisa, I.O., Irgens, G.A. (2023). To Ban or Embrace: Students’ Perceptions Towards Adopting Advanced AI Chatbots in Schools. In: Arastoopour Irgens, G., Knight, S. (eds) Advances in Quantitative Ethnography. ICQE 2023. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 1895. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47014-1_10.

[23] Hasan, S., Godhuli, E. R., Rahman, M. S., & Al Mamun, M. A. (2023). The adoption of conversational assistants in the banking industry: is the perceived risk a moderator?. Heliyon, 9(9), e20220. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20220.

[24] Lim, S. H., Kim, D. J., Hur, Y., & Park, K. (2019). An empirical study of the impacts of perceived security and knowledge on continuous intention to use mobile fintech payment services. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 35(10), 886-898. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2018.1507132.

[25] Acosta-Enriquez, B. G., Arbulú Ballesteros, M. A., Huamaní Jordan, O., López Roca, C., & Saavedra Tirado, K. (2024). Analysis of college students' attitudes toward the use of ChatGPT in their academic activities: effect of intent to use, verification of information and responsible use. BMC psychology, 12(1), 255. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01764-z.

[26] Arpaci, I. (2023). A multianalytical SEM-ANN approach to investigate the social sustainability of AI chatbots based on cybersecurity and protection motivation theory. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 71, 1714-1725. https:// doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2023.3339578.

[27] Hair, J. F. (2011). Multivariate data analysis: An overview. International encyclopedia of statistical science, 904-907. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04898-2_395.

[28] Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in science education, 48(6), 1273-1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2.

[29] Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104.

[30] Cheung, G. W., Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Lau, R. S., & Wang, L. C. (2024). Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations. Asia pacific journal of management, 41(2), 745-783. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-023-09871-y.

[31] Aiken, L. S. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. sage.