SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Gümüşhane Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Elektronik Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 14 Sayı: 2

The Impact of Artificial Intelligence Technologies on Creativity: An Examination in the Context of Intention to Adopt AI, AI Self-Efficacy, Perceived Quality, and Performance Expectation.

Yapay Zeka Teknolojilerinin Yaratıcılık Üzerindeki Etkisi: Yapay Zekayı Benimseme Niyeti, Yapay Zeka Öz Yeterliliği, Algılanan Kalite ve Performans Beklentisi Bağlamında Bir İnceleme.

Engincan Yıldız(İSTANBUL GELİŞİM ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-2549-3473
Pages
1541–1566
Publication Date
2026-10-01
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In conclusion, the study showed that students' perception of artificial intelligence as a reliable, useful, and manageable tool supports their integration of this technology into their creative processes and leads to higher creative performance.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) has impacted knowledge generation, problem-solving, and content development processes in numerous fields, from education to media and creative industries.
📊
Key Findings & Data:These impacts raise the question of how AI tools influence the creative performance of university students in particular.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In conclusion, the study showed that students' perception of artificial intelligence as a reliable, useful, and manageable tool supports their integration of this technology into their creative processes and leads to higher creative performance.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Yapay Zekâ · Yaratıcılık · Teknoloji Kabulü

Abstract

Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) has impacted knowledge generation, problem-solving, and content development processes in numerous fields, from education to media and creative industries. These impacts raise the question of how AI tools influence the creative performance of university students in particular. This study aims to examine the effects of perceived quality, AI self-efficacy, and perceived usefulness on willingness to use AI and creativity, and to test the mediating role of AI adoption intention in these relationships. The research involved a survey of university students over 18 years of age studying communication in Turkey. 385 valid data points were obtained using simple random sampling and analyzed. After completing reliability and validity analyses of the measurement tools, structural equation modeling was used to test the relationships between variables. The findings show that perceived quality, self-efficacy, and perceived usefulness have positive effects on creativity; furthermore, AI adoption intention plays a partial mediating role in these relationships. In conclusion, the study showed that students' perception of artificial intelligence as a reliable, useful, and manageable tool supports their integration of this technology into their creative processes and leads to higher creative performance. The results offer significant theoretical and practical contributions to both educational policies and AI-assisted learning designs.

Özet

Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) has impacted knowledge generation, problem-solving, and content development processes in numerous fields, from education to media and creative industries. These impacts raise the question of how AI tools influence the creative performance of university students in particular. This study aims to examine the effects of perceived quality, AI self-efficacy, and perceived usefulness on willingness to use AI and creativity, and to test the mediating role of AI adoption intention in these relationships. The research involved a survey of university students over 18 years of age studying communication in Turkey. 385 valid data points were obtained using simple random sampling and analyzed. After completing reliability and validity analyses of the measurement tools, structural equation modeling was used to test the relationships between variables. The findings show that perceived quality, self-efficacy, and perceived usefulness have positive effects on creativity; furthermore, AI adoption intention plays a partial mediating role in these relationships. In conclusion, the study showed that students' perception of artificial intelligence as a reliable, useful, and manageable tool supports their integration of this technology into their creative processes and leads to higher creative performance. The results offer significant theoretical and practical contributions to both educational policies and AI-assisted learning designs.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yıldız, E. (2026). The Impact of Artificial Intelligence Technologies on Creativity: An Examination in the Context of Intention to Adopt AI, AI Self-Efficacy, Perceived Quality, and Performance Expectation.. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Elektronik Dergisi, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 2, 1541–1566. https://doi.org/10.19145/e-gifder.1857632

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (61)

  1. AlAli, R., & Wardat, Y. (2024). Opportunities and Challenges of Integrating Generative Artificial Intelligence in Education. International Journal of Religion, 5(7), 784-793. https://doi.org/10.61707/8y29gv34
  2. Albinkhalil, N. Y., & Moharam, M. M. R. (2025). The Role of AI in Applied Projects Among Media Students in Bahraini Universities. Içinde R. K. Hamdan (Ed.), Tech Fusion in Business and Society (C. 234, ss. 391-401). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-84636-6_33
  3. Al-Maroof, R. A. S., & Al-Emran, M. (2018). Students Acceptance of Google Classroom: An Exploratory Study using PLS-SEM Approach. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 13(06), 112. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v13i06.8275
  4. Altunışık, R., Coşkun, R., Bayraktaroğlu, S., & Yıldırım, E. (2010). Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma Yöntemleri: SPSS Uygulamalı. Sakarya Yayıncılık.
  5. Amabile, T. M., & Pratt, M. G. (2016). The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 157-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.10.001
  6. Ardeliya, V. E., Taylor, J., & Wolfson, J. (2024). Exploration of Artificial Intelligence in Creative Fields: Generative Art, Music, and Design. International Journal of Cyber and IT Service Management, 4(1), 40-46. https://doi.org/10.34306/ijcitsm.v4i1.149
  7. Aydin, Ö., & Karaarslan, E. (2023). Is ChatGPT Leading Generative AI? What is Beyond Expectations? Academic Platform Journal of Engineering and Smart Systems, 11(3), 118-134. https://doi.org/10.21541/apjess.1293702
  8. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
  9. Banh, L., & Strobel, G. (2023). Generative artificial intelligence. Electronic Markets, 33(1), 63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-023-00680-1
  10. Bubeck, S., Chandrasekaran, V., Eldan, R., Gehrke, J., Horvitz, E., Kamar, E., Lee, P., Lee, Y. T., Li, Y., Lundberg, S., Nori, H., Palangi, H., Ribeiro, M. T., & Zhang, Y. (2023). Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4 (arXiv:2303.12712). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.12712
  11. Chen, M., Liu, F., & Lee, Y.-H. (2022). My Tutor is an AI: The Effects of Involvement and Tutor Type on Perceived Quality, Perceived Credibility, and Use Intention. Içinde H. Degen & S. Ntoa (Ed.), Artificial Intelligence in HCI (C. 13336, ss. 232-244). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05643-7_15
  12. Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of a Measure and Initial Test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189-211. https://doi.org/10.2307/249688
  13. Coşar, B., Uzunçarşili, Ü., & Altindağ, E. (2020). Do Not Neglect the Power of Symbols on Employee Performance: An Empirical Evidence From Turkey. Sage Open, 10(4), 2158244020967949. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020967949
  14. Council of Higher Education. (2024). Higher education statistics. Council of higher education pre-sidency [Mektup]. https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/
  15. Çimen, M. (2025). Müşteri Deneyiminin Iyileştirilmesinde Yapay Zekâ Uygulamalarının Kabulü ve Riskin Kalite Algısı Üzerindeki Etkis [Master’s Thesis]. Necmettin Erbakan University.
  16. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
  17. Doshi, A. R., & Hauser, O. (2023). Generative Artificial Intelligence Enhances Creativity. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4535536
  18. Essien, A., Crawford, J., & Kremantzis, M. (2025). Evaluating the impact of perceived information quality on GenAI technology adoption in higher education students. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2025.8.2.5
  19. Estanyol, E., Fernández-Ardèvol, M., López-Borrull, A., Fernández-de-Castro, P., & Costa Gálvez, L. (2025). Perception and use of generative AI among corporate communication students in higher education: Adjusting expectations. Cuadernos.info, (62), 250-272. https://doi.org/10.7764/cdi.62.89632
  20. Euchner, J. (2023). Almost Human. Research-Technology Management, 66(2), 10-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2023.2164831
  21. Gilreath, H. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence integrations and applications. Journal of Print and Media Technology Research, 13(1), 35-42. https://doi.org/10.14622/JPMTR-2401
  22. Gursoy, D., Chi, O. H., Lu, L., & Nunkoo, R. (2019). Consumers acceptance of artificially intelligent (AI) device use in service delivery. International Journal of Information Management, 49, 157-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.03.008
  23. Haase, J., & Hanel, P. H. P. (2023). Artificial muses: Generative Artificial Intelligence Chatbots Have Risen to Human-Level Creativity. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2303.12003
  24. Habib, S., Vogel, T., Anli, X., & Thorne, E. (2024). How does generative artificial intelligence impact student creativity? Journal of Creativity, 34(1), 100072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yjoc.2023.100072
  25. Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-152. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202
  26. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
  27. Hwang, Y., & Wu, Y. (2025). The influence of generative artificial intelligence on creative cognition of design students: A chain mediation model of self-efficacy and anxiety. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1455015. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1455015
  28. Ibrahim, F., Münscher, J.-C., Daseking, M., & Telle, N.-T. (2025). The technology acceptance model and adopter type analysis in the context of artificial intelligence. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 7, 1496518. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2024.1496518
  29. Jeyaraj, A., Sun, Y., & Wang, C. (2020). Enterprise social media affordances as enablers of knowledge transfer and creative performance: An empirical study. Telematics and Informatics, 51, 101402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101402
  30. Jovanovic, M., & Campbell, M. (2022). Generative Artificial Intelligence: Trends and Prospects. Computer, 55(10), 107-112. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2022.3192720
  31. Kaplan, A., & Haenlein, M. (2019). Siri, Siri, in my hand: Who’s the fairest in the land? On the interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial intelligence. Business Horizons, 62(1), 15-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.08.004
  32. Kim, D. (2023). On Words That Come Easy. GRUR International, 72(5), 433-434. https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikad030
  33. Kock, N. (2020). WarpPLS User Manual: Version 7.0. ScriptWarp Systems.
  34. Kozak, M. (2014). Bilimsel Araştırma: Tasarım, Yazım ve Yayım Teknikleri. Detay Yayıncılık.
  35. Leavy, P. (2017). Research design. The Guilford Press.
  36. Lin, C.-S. (2025). Co-Creating With AI: How Communication Students Learn, Think, and Rely on Intelligent Systems. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 64(1), 155-179. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331251385944
  37. Lu, L., Cai, R., & Gursoy, D. (2019). Developing and validating a service robot integration willingness scale. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 80, 36-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.01.005
  38. Lv, Z. (2023). Generative artificial intelligence in the metaverse era. Cognitive Robotics, 3, 208-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogr.2023.06.001
  39. Madjar, N., Greenberg, E., & Chen, Z. (2011). Factors for radical creativity, incremental creativity, and routine, noncreative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 730-743. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022416
  40. McCoy, C. (2010). Perceived self-efficacy and technology proficiency in undergraduate college students. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1614-1617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.003
  41. Nagy, S., & Hajdu, N. (2021). Consumer acceptance of the use of artificial intelligence in online shopping: Evidence from Hungary. www.amfiteatrueconomic.ro, 23(56), 155. https://doi.org/10.24818/EA/2021/56/155
  42. Ooi, K.-B., Tan, G. W.-H., Al-Emran, M., Al-Sharafi, M. A., Capatina, A., Chakraborty, A., Dwivedi, Y. K., Huang, T.-L., Kar, A. K., Lee, V.-H., Loh, X.-M., Micu, A., Mikalef, P., Mogaji, E., Pandey, N., Raman, R., Rana, N. P., Sarker, P., Sharma, A., … Wong, L.-W. (2025). The Potential of Generative Artificial Intelligence Across Disciplines: Perspectives and Future Directions. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 65(1), 76-107. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2023.2261010
  43. Öztürkcan, M. (2006). İstatistik. Maltepe Üniversitesi Yayınları. Park, J., Woo, S. E., & Kim, J. (2024). Attitudes towards artificial intelligence at work: Scale development and validation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 97(3), 920-951. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12502
  44. Petrenko, A. (2025). Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) for Research and Creative Activities. Içinde M. Zgurovsky & N. Pankratova (Ed.), System Analysis and Data Mining (C. 609, ss. 251-265). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-97529-5_15
  45. Schumacher., E. R., & Lomax, G. R. (2004). A Beginner’s Guide to STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
  46. Sebastian, R., Kottekkadan, N. N., Thomas, T. K., & Niyas Kk, M. (2025). Generative AI tools (ChatGPT*) in social science research. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 23(2), 284-290. https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-10-2024-0145
  47. Sengar, S. S., Hasan, A. B., Kumar, S., & Carroll, F. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence: A systematic review and applications. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 84(21), 23661-23700. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-024-20016-1
  48. Sohn, K., & Kwon, O. (2020). Technology acceptance theories and factors influencing artificial Intelligence-based intelligent products. Telematics and Informatics, 47, 101324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2019.101324
  49. Stylidis, K., Wickman, C., & Söderberg, R. (2020). Perceived quality of products: A framework and attributes ranking method. Journal of Engineering Design, 31(1), 37-67. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2019.1669769
  50. Sun, Y., Wang, C., & Jeyaraj, A. (2020). Enterprise social media affordances as enablers of knowledge transfer and creative performance: An empirical study. Telematics and Informatics, 51, 101402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101402
  51. Taherdoost, H. (2016). Sampling Methods in Research Methodology; How to Choose a Sampling Technique for Research. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3205035
  52. Tala, M. L., Muller, C. N., Nastase, I. A., State, O., & Gheorghe, G. (2024). Exploring University Students Perceptions of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Education. Amfiteatru Economic, 26(65), 71. https://doi.org/10.24818/EA/2024/65/71
  53. Tredinnick, L., & Laybats, C. (2023). Black-box creativity and generative artifical intelligence. Business Information Review, 40(3), 98-102. https://doi.org/10.1177/02663821231195131
  54. Tsao, J., Liang, C. X., Nogues, C., & Wong, A. (2025). Perceptions and integration of generative artificial intelligence in creative practices and industries: A scoping review and conceptual model. AI & SOCIETY. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02667-2
  55. Türker, P. M., & Öztürk, M. (2024). Generative Artificial Intelligence and the 4C Learning Skills for the 21st Century: İçinde E. Cela, N. R. Vajjhala, & M. M. Fonkam (Ed.), Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design (ss. 285-320). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-7220-3.ch011
  56. Vinchon, F., Lubart, T., Bartolotta, S., Gironnay, V., Botella, M., Bourgeois-Bougrine, S., Burkhardt, J., Bonnardel, N., Corazza, G. E., Glăveanu, V., Hanchett Hanson, M., Ivcevic, Z., Karwowski, M., Kaufman, J. C., Okada, T., Reiter‐Palmon, R., & Gaggioli, A. (2023). Artificial Intelligence & Creativity: A Manifesto for Collaboration. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 57(4), 472-484. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.597
  57. Wang, Y.-Y., & Chuang, Y.-W. (2024). Artificial intelligence self-efficacy: Scale development and validation. Education and Information Technologies, 29(4), 4785-4808. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12015-w
  58. Yu, H., & Guo, Y. (2023). Generative artificial intelligence empowers educational reform: Current status, issues, and prospects. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1183162. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1183162
  59. Zakir, S., Bibi, S., Butt, D., Gul, R., & Khan, N. (2025). GAI Creative Content in Media and Education: Is Human-AI Co-Creativity Worthy of Copyright Protection? Review Journal of Social Psychology & Social Works, 3(2), 606-619.
  60. Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1988). Communication and Control Processes in the Delivery of Service Quality. Journal of Marketing, 52(2), 35-48. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298805200203
  61. Zou, M., & Huang, L. (2023). To use or not to use? Understanding doctoral students’ acceptance of ChatGPT in writing through technology acceptance model. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1259531. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1259531