PL EN
 
1/2026 vol. 65
Stats
CC BY-SA 3.0
Get citation
ORIGINAL PAPER
Opinions and Attitudes of Generation Z Representants Toward Artificial Intelligence: An Exploration of Selected Areas
Olgierd Witczak 1
,
 
Anna Dewalska-Opitek 1
Scopus logo
,
 
Aleksandra Szejniuk 2
 
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
University of Economics in Katowice, Poland
 
2
WSGE University of Applied Science in Józefów, Poland
 
 
Submission date: 2025-10-04
 
 
Final revision date: 2026-02-04
 
 
Acceptance date: 2026-02-17
 
 
Publication date: 2026-04-18
 
 
Corresponding author
Olgierd Witczak   

University of Economics in Katowice, Poland
 
 
JoMS 2026;65(1):787-810
DOI: https://doi.org/10.13166/jms/218202
 
 
Article (PDF)
References (53)
 
KEYWORDS
attitudes
opinions
consumers
generation Z
artificial intelligence
 
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Objectives:
The aim of the article is to present the opinions and attitudes of Generation Z individuals towards the challenges related to the development and applications of artificial intelligence, including their level of knowledge about solutions, understanding of risks, and the emotions and behaviors associated with their use.

Material and methods:
A qualitative research approach, based on focus group interviews, was employed to gain an in-depth understanding of the experiences of Generation Z consumers. Participants were purposefully selected students from various countries, and the interviews were conducted according to a thematic framework that captured both individual opinions and the dynamics of the discussions.

Results:
The results indicate widespread, although varying in intensity, use of artificial intelligence in areas such as entertainment, shopping, everyday organization, and education. Respondents perceive these solutions as practical tools that increase convenience, save time, and foster creativity. At the same time, they reveal an awareness of key risks, particularly those related to data privacy and security, the lack of transparency in algorithmic decisions, susceptibility to disinformation and bias, the risk of excessive dependence on technology, as well as the potential negative impact on the labor market.

Conclusions:
Generation Z research participants' attitudes are ambivalent, with enthusiasm and pragmatism coexisting alongside caution and a need to verify content.
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA)
REFERENCES (53)
1.
Abendroth Dias, K., Arias Cabarcos, P., Bacco, F.M., Bassani, E., Bertoletti, A. i in., (2025). Generative AI Outlook Report – Exploring the Intersection of Technology, Society and Policy, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. JRC142598, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.... (dostęp: 11.09.2025).
Google Scholar
 
 
2.
Acosta-Enriquez, B.G., Arbulú Ballesteros, M.A., Arbulu Perez Vargas, C.G., Orellana Ulloa, M.N., Gutiérrez Ulloa, C.R., Pizarro Romero, J.M., … López Roca, C. (2024). Knowledge, attitudes, and perceived Ethics regarding the use of ChatGPT among generation Z university students. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 20(1), s. 10.
Google Scholar
 
 
3.
Adeoye‐Olatunde, O.A., Olenik, N.L. (2021). Research and scholarly methods: Semi‐structured interviews. Journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy, 4(10), s. 1358–1367.
Google Scholar
 
 
4.
Bouncken, R.B., Czakon, W., Schmitt, F. (2025). Purposeful sampling and saturation in qualitative research methodologies: recommendations and review. Review of Managerial Science, s. 1–37.
Google Scholar
 
 
5.
Capraro, V., Lentsch, A., Acemoglu, D., Akgun, S., Akhmedova, A., Bilancini, E., Viale, R. i in. (2024). The impact of generative artificial intelligence on socioeconomic inequalities and policy making. PNAS nexus, 3(6), pgae 191, s. 1–18.
Google Scholar
 
 
6.
Castelo, N., Boegershausen, J., Hildebrand, C., Henkel, A.P. (2023). Understanding and Improving Consumer Reactions to Service Bots. Journal of Consumer Research, 50(4), s. 848–863.
Google Scholar
 
 
7.
Cinelli, M., De Francisci Morales, G., Galeazzi, A., Quattrociocchi, W., Starnini, M. (2021). The echo chamber effect on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(9), e2023301118, s. 1–8.
Google Scholar
 
 
8.
Crevier, D. (1993). AI: The tumultuous history of the search for artificial intelligence. New York, Basic Books.
Google Scholar
 
 
9.
Damelang, A., Otto, M. (2024). Who is replaced by robots? Robotization and the risk of unemployment for different types of workers. Work and Occupations, 51(2), s. 181–206.
Google Scholar
 
 
10.
Deloitte. (2023). The Deloitte Global 2023 Gen Z and Millennial Survey. Deloitte Insights,https://www2.deloitte.com/glob... (dostęp: 15.09.2025).
Google Scholar
 
 
11.
Dewalska-Opitek, A., Witczak, O. (2023). Generation Z as consumers – contemporary relationship challenges. Zeszyty Naukowe Akademii Górnośląskiej, 4, s. 53–61.
Google Scholar
 
 
12.
Dewalska-Opitek, A., Witczak, O., Szostak, A., Dziura, M., Wroniszewska-Drabek, B. (2024). Generation Z’s trust toward artificial intelligence: attitudes and opinions. European Research Studies Journal, 27(S3), s. 33–52.
Google Scholar
 
 
13.
Francis, T., Hoefel, F. (2018). ,,True Gen”: Generation Z and its implications for companies. McKinsey & Company, https://www.mckinsey.com/indus... (dostęp: 12.09.2025).
Google Scholar
 
 
14.
Grønkjær, M., Curtis, T., De Crespigny, C., Delmar, C. (2011). Analysing group interaction in focus group research: Impact on content and the role of the moderator. Qualitative studies, 2(1), s. 16–30..
Google Scholar
 
 
15.
Hagendorff, T. (2020). The ethics of AI ethics: An evaluation of guidelines. Minds and Machines, 30(1), s. 99–120.
Google Scholar
 
 
16.
Hardcastle, K., Vorster, L., Brown, D.M. (2025). Understanding Customer Responses to AI-Driven Personalized Journeys: Impacts on the Customer Experience. Journal of Advertising, 54(2), s. 176–195.
Google Scholar
 
 
17.
Hennink, M.M., Kaiser, B.N., Weber, M.B. (2019). What influences saturation? Estimating sample sizes in focus group research. Qualitative Health Research, 29(10), s. 1483–1496.
Google Scholar
 
 
18.
Ho, M.T., Mantello, P., Ghotbi, N., Nguyen, M.H., Nguyen, H.K.T., Vuong, Q.H. (2022). Rethinking technological acceptance in the age of emotional AI: surveying Gen Z (Zoomer) attitudes toward non-conscious data collection. Technology in Society, 70, 102011.
Google Scholar
 
 
19.
Hynek, N., Gavurova, B., Kubak, M. (2025). Risks and benefits of artificial intelligence deepfakes: Systematic review and comparison of public attitudes in seven European Countries. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 10(5), 100782, s. 1–19.
Google Scholar
 
 
20.
Jacobsen, B. N., Simpson, J. (2024). The tensions of deepfakes. Information, Communication & Society, 27(6), s. 1095–1109.
Google Scholar
 
 
21.
Jiang, Y., Li, X., Luo, H., Yin, S., Kaynak, O. (2022). Quo vadis artificial intelligence? Discover Artificial Intelligence, 2(1), 4, s. 1–19.
Google Scholar
 
 
22.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York, NYU Press.
Google Scholar
 
 
23.
Khogali, H.O., Mekid, S. (2023). The blended future of automation and AI: Examining some long-term societal and ethical impact features. Technology in Society, 73, 102232, s. 1–12.
Google Scholar
 
 
24.
Kim, P., Durrie, R. (2025). AI Ethics, Law, and Policy. Law, and Policy (June 11, 2025). 25-06. Washington University in St. Louis Legal Studies Research Paper, 3, s. 1–21.
Google Scholar
 
 
25.
Klingbeil, A., Grützner, C., Schreck, P. (2024). Trust and reliance on AI – An experimental study on the extent and costs of overreliance on AI. Computers in Human Behavior, 160, 108352, s. 1–10.
Google Scholar
 
 
26.
Korteling, J.E., van de Boer-Visschedijk, G.C., Blankendaal, R.A., Boonekamp, R.C., Eikelboom, A.R. (2021). Human-versus artificial intelligence. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 4, 622364, s. 1–13.
Google Scholar
 
 
27.
Kvale, S., Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Los Angeles, Sage.
Google Scholar
 
 
28.
Lim, W.M. (2025). What is qualitative research? An overview and guidelines. Australasian Marketing Journal, 33(2), s. 199–229.
Google Scholar
 
 
29.
Liu-Thompkins, Y., Okazaki, S., Li, H. (2022). Artificial Empathy in Marketing Interactions: Bridging the Human – AI Gap in Affective and Social Customer Experience. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 50(6), s. 1198–1218.
Google Scholar
 
 
30.
Manolică, A., Bucătaru, O., Roman, C.T., Bertea, P.E., Jelea, A.R. (2025). Adoption of AI in Digital Marketing: Comparing Gen Z and Gen Y through the Technology Acceptance Model. BRAIN. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience, 16(3), s. 102–128.
Google Scholar
 
 
31.
Manzano, A. (2022). Conducting focus groups in realist evaluation. Evaluation, 28(4), s. 406–425.
Google Scholar
 
 
32.
May, R. (2024). Artificial intelligence, data and competition.OECD Publishing. Artificial Intelligence Papers, 18, s. 1–62.
Google Scholar
 
 
33.
Mazurek-Łopacińska, K. (red.) (2016). Badania marketingowe. Metody, techniki i obszary aplikacji na współczesnym rynku. Warszawa: PWN.
Google Scholar
 
 
34.
McCarthy, J., Minsky, M.L., Rochester, N., Shannon, C.E. (2006). A proposal for the Dartmouth summer research project on artificial intelligence. August 31, 1955. AI Magazine, 27(4), s. 12–12.
Google Scholar
 
 
35.
McCarthy, J., Minsky, M.L., Rochester, N., Shannon, C.E. (1955). A proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence (s. 1–13). Stanford, Stanford University.
Google Scholar
 
 
36.
McCulloch, W.S., Pitts, W.H. (1943). A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity. . The Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, 5(4), s. 115–133.
Google Scholar
 
 
37.
McKinsey & Company. (2024). How Gen Z is shaping the future of consumer behaviour. McKinsey Global Institute, https://www.mckinsey.com (dostęp: 15.09.2025).
Google Scholar
 
 
38.
Ng, E.S., Lyons, S.T., Schweitzer, L. (red.). (2012). Managing the new workforce: International perspectives on the millennial generation. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing.
Google Scholar
 
 
39.
Pantano, E., Scarpi, D. (2022). I, Robot, You, Consumer: Measuring Artificial Intelligence Types and their Effect on Consumers Emotions in Service. Journal of Service Research, 25(4), s. 583–600.
Google Scholar
 
 
40.
Pilz, K.F., Heim, L., Brown, N. (2025). Increased compute efficiency and the diffusion of AI capabilities. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 39(26), s. 27582–27590.
Google Scholar
 
 
41.
Qian, Y., Siau, K.L., Nah, F.F. (2024). Societal impacts of artificial intelligence: Ethical, legal, and governance issues. Societal Impacts, 3, 100040, s. 1–5.
Google Scholar
 
 
42.
Olawale, S.R., Chinagozi, O.G., Joe, O.N. (2023). Exploratory research design in management science: A review of literature on conduct and application. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 7(4), s. 1384–1395.
Google Scholar
 
 
43.
Roberts, D.L., Candi, M. (2024). Artificial intelligence and innovation management: Charting the evolving landscape. Technovation, 136, 103081, s. 1–11.
Google Scholar
 
 
44.
Rosli, M.S., Saleh, N.S., Ali, A.M., Bakar, S.A. (2026). Exploring the Factors Influencing Artificial Intelligence Adoption among Gen Z University Students: the Role of Self-Efficacy and Perceived Trust. Journal for STEM Education Research, s. 1–45, https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
45.
Russell, S., Norvig, P. (2021). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach. Hoboken, Pearson.
Google Scholar
 
 
46.
Samoili, S., Lopez Cobo, M., Gomez Gutierrez, E., De Prato, G., Martinez-Plumed, F. Delipetrev, B. (2020). AI WATCH. Defining Artificial Intelligence. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Google Scholar
 
 
47.
Sangitha, K. (2026). A Study on Perception of Gen Z Customers on Artificial Intelligence in Chennai City. Smart Sustainability, s. 228–248.
Google Scholar
 
 
48.
Seemiller, C., Grace, M. (2019). Generation Z: A century in the making. New York, Routledge.
Google Scholar
 
 
49.
Sim, J., Waterfield, J. (2019). Focus group methodology: some ethical challenges. Quality & Quantity, 53(6), s. 3003–3022.
Google Scholar
 
 
50.
Singla , A., Sukharevsky, A., Yee, L., Chui, M., Hall, B. (2025). The state of AI. How organizations are rewiring to capture value, McKinsey & Company,https://www.mckinsey.com/capab... (dostęp: 11.09.2025).
Google Scholar
 
 
51.
Suresh, T.P., Yong, P.L., Chyi, Y.S., Musa, R. (2023). Connecting with Generation Z: consumer acceptance of the use of artificial intelligence in online shopping. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Business, 11(1), s. 53–64.
Google Scholar
 
 
52.
Vitezić, V., Perić, M. (2021). Artificial intelligence acceptance in services: connecting with Generation Z. The Service Industries Journal, 41(13–14), s. 926–946.
Google Scholar
 
 
53.
Wang, P. (2019). On defining artificial intelligence. Journal of Artificial General Intelligence, 10(2), s. 1–37.
Google Scholar
 
 
Share
Send by email
RELATED ARTICLE
Computationalism, Artificial Intelligence, and Emotions
The human being and their value in the context of professional work in the age of Artificial Intelligence
Between Innovation and Threat: Artificial Intelligence in Modern Diplomacy
Ethics and responsibility as new foundations of organizational competitiveness – CSR from the perspective of the young generation of consumers
The use of elements of artificial intelligence in public safety and order based on the example of the Intelligent Monitoring and Analysis System of Katowice
Indexes
 
Keywords index
Topics index
Authors index
eISSN:2391-789X
ISSN:1734-2031
Journals System - logo
© 2006-2026 Journal hosting platform by Bentus
Scroll to top