International Journal of Information Technology and Computer Science (IJITCS)
IJITCS Vol. 18, No. 3, 8 Jun. 2026
Cover page and Table of Contents: PDF (size: 571KB)
Understanding Gen Z's Engagement with Conversational AI: A Modified TAM Study on WhatsApp's Meta AI
PDF (571KB), PP.57-69
Views: 0 Downloads: 0
Author(s)
Eri Satria
1,*
Muhammad Rikza Nashrulloh
1
Wiki Asri Iswandi
1
Index Terms
Conversational AI, Meta AI, Modified TAM, User Engagement, Generation Z, WhatsApp
Abstract
The rapid integration of conversational Artificial Intelligence (AI) into instant messaging platforms has transformed how younger generations interact with digital technology. This study investigates Generation Z's engagement with Meta AI on WhatsApp by employing a modified Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) that partitions End-User Computing Satisfaction (EUCS) dimensions to ensure measurement validity. Specifically, 'content' and 'accuracy' reflect Perceived Usefulness, while 'format' and 'timeliness' reflect Perceived Ease of Use. A quantitative survey involving 272 Generation Z respondents in Indonesia was analyzed using Covariance-Based Structural Equation Modeling (CB-SEM) with AMOS. The results reveal that Perceived Ease of Use significantly influences both Perceived Usefulness and Attitude Toward Using. Consequently, Perceived Usefulness acts as a partial, rather than full, mediator between ease of use and user attitude. Furthermore, Attitude Toward Using emerged as a powerful determinant of Actual System Use, with the proposed model explaining 89% of its variance (R2 = 0.89). These findings suggest a synergistic effect for "digital natives": while an intuitive format and fast response times directly foster positive attitudes, the epistemic quality and accuracy of the AI remain the dominant drivers of sustained engagement. This study contributes theoretically by validating a robust, multicollinearity-resistant modified TAM for conversational AI, providing practical insights for developers to maintain frictionless interfaces while prioritizing algorithmic accuracy to enhance user adoption.
Cite This Paper
Eri Satria, Muhammad Rikza Nashrulloh, Wiki Asri Iswandi, "Understanding Gen Z's Engagement with Conversational AI: A Modified TAM Study on WhatsApp's Meta AI", International Journal of Information Technology and Computer Science(IJITCS), Vol.18, No.3, pp.57-69, 2026. DOI:10.5815/ijitcs.2026.03.05
Reference
[1]K. Tamilmani, N. P. Rana, and Y. K. Dwivedi, “Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Technology : A Meta-Analytic Evaluation of UTAUT2,” pp. 987–1005, 2021.
[2]E. Kasneci et al., “ChatGPT for good ? On opportunities and challenges of large language models for education,” vol. 103, no. March, p. 102274, 2023.
[3]N. Alshahwan, A. Finegenova, M. Harman, and E. Wang, Automated Unit Test Improvement using Large Language Models at Meta, vol. 1, no. 1. Association for Computing Machinery, 2024.
[4]R. Ginanjar, “Analysis of the Influence and Impact of social media on Gen-Z Literacy Activities,” vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 11–16, 2025.
[5]N. Evita and A. M. Prestianta, “Patterns of media and social media use in generation z in Indonesia,” vol. 7, no. March, pp. 195–214, 2023, doi: 10.25139/jsk.v7i1.
[6]C. T. Roman, “Adoption of AI in Digital Marketing : Comparing Gen Z and Gen Y through the Technology Acceptance Model ,” BRAIN . Broad Res. Artif. Intell. Neurosci., vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 102–128, 2025.
[7]D. Menon and K. Shilpa, “‘Chatting with ChatGPT’: Analyzing the factors influencing users’ intention to Use the Open AI’s ChatGPT using the UTAUT model,” Heliyon, vol. 9, no. 11, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20962.
[8]I. Putra et al., “Analysis of ChatGPT User Acceptance Among Gen Z using UTAUT and TPB Methods,” vol. 14, pp. 1851–1864, 2025.
[9]M. Solehudin and W. R. Al-Nur, “Penggunaan, Dampak Artificial, Meta Pada, Intelligence Terhadap, Whatsapp,” J. Kependidikan, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 45–58, 2025.
[10]T. Wahyuti and R. Sudarmanti, “The Influence Of Whatsapp Usage On Persuasive Communication In Romantic Relationships : A Study Among Indonesian Generation Z,” vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 249–258, 2025.
[11]S. Saklani and Devkant Kala, “Perception of Gen Z Customers towards Chatbots as Service Agents A Qualitative Study in the Indian Context,” J. Telecommun. Digit. Econ., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 356–376, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.18080/jtde.v12n1.781.
[12]F. D. Davis, “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease, and User Acceptance of Information Technology,” MIS Q., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 319–340, 1989, doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/249008.
[13]V. Venkatesh and F. D. Davis, “A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies,” Manage. Sci., vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 186–204, 2000, doi: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926.
[14]W. J. Doll and G. Torkzadeh, “The measurement of end-user computing satisfaction,” MIS Q., vol. Volume 12, no. 2, pp. 259–274, 1988, doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/248851.
[15]A. Strzelecki, “To use or not to use ChatGPT in higher education ? A study of students ’ acceptance and use of technology,” vol. 32, no. 9, pp. 5142–5155, 2024.
[16]L. Van Huy, H. T. T. Nguyen, T. Vo-Thanh, N. H. T. Thinh, and T. T. T. Dung, “Generative AI, Why, How, and Outcomes: A User Adoption Study,” vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 1–27, 2024, doi: 10.17705/1thci.00198.
[17]N. K. Pratiwi, “Persepsi Mahasiswa terhadap Penggunaan Chatgpt : Peluang dan Tantangan bagi Pembelajaran Bahasa Indonesia sebagai Mata Kuliah Wajib pada Kurikulum Perguruan Tinggi,” J. Onoma Pendidikan, Bhs. dan Sastra, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 2727–2742, 2024.
[18]J. F. Hair, W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, and R. E. Anderson, Structural Equation Modeling with Amos. Boston: MA: Cengage Learning, 2019.
[19]R. B. Kline, Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 4th ed. New York: Guilford Press, 2016.
[20]B. M. Byrne, Structural Equation Modeling with Amos, 3rd ed. New York: Routledge, 2016.
[21]M. A. Memon, R. Thurasamyd, H. Tingg, and J.-H. Cheah, “Convenience Sampling : A Review and Guidelines For Quantitative Research,” J. Appl. Struct. Equ. Model., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1–15, 2025, doi: 10.47263/JASEM.9(2)01.
[22]I. Etikan, S. A. Musa, and R. S. Alkassim, “Comparison of Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling,” vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1–4, 2016, doi: 10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11.
[23]C. Fornell and D. F. Larcker, “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error,” J. Mark. Res., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 39–50, 1981.
[24]J. Henseler, C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt, “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling,” pp. 115–135, 2015, doi: 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.
[25]L. Hu, P. M. Bentler, and L. Hu, “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis : Conventional criteria versus new alternatives,” vol. 5511, 2009, doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118.
[26]K. J. Preacher and A. F. Hayes, “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects Indirect Effects in Multiple Mediator Models,” vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 879–891, 2008, doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879.
[27]C. B. Jarvis, S. B. MacKenzie, and P. M. Podsakoff, “A Critical Review of Construct Indicators and Measurement Model Misspecification in Marketing and Consumer Research,” J. Consum. Res., vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 199–218, 2003, doi: https://doi.org/10.1086/376806.
[28]P. M. Podsakoff, S. B. MacKenzie, J.Y. Lee, and N. P. Podsakoff, "Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies," Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 88, no. 5, pp. 879–903, 2003, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
[29]C. K. Y. Chan and W. Hu, “Students’ voices on generative AI: perceptions, benefits, and challenges in higher education,” Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ., vol. 20, no. 1, 2023, doi: 10.1186/s41239-023-00411-8.
[30]Y. K. Dwivedi et al., “‘So what if ChatGPT wrote it?’ Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy,” Int. J. Inf. Manage., vol. 71, no. March, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642.
[31]M. Hannig, R. Stock-Homburg, and M. Knof, “The privacy paradox in interactions with service robots in the workplace,” Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag., vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 385–413, 2025, doi: 10.1080/09585192.2024.2445135.
[32]J. Cai, R. Wu, H. Hua, G. Sun, Y. Zhang, and X. Fu, “Psychometric Properties of the Chinese Version of Human-Computer Trust (HCT) Scale in the Chinese Sample of Adults,” Int. J. Human–Computer Interact., vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 367–377, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.1080/10447318.2023.2300017.