IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ers/journl/vxxviiy2024i3p730-745.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Students' Willingness to Pay for Access to ChatGPT

Author

Listed:
  • Iwona Lupa-Wojcik

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to investigate the socioeconomic determinants of students' WTP for ChatGPT, under the assumption that all its versions require payment. Specifically, the research explores how factors such as gender, age, place of residence, employment status, income, savings, and the use of ChatGPT for commercial purposes influence the amount students are willing to pay. Design/Methodology/Approach: The research employs a diagnostic survey method, utilizing an original question-naire to collect data from a diverse student population. The study's design allows for the analysis of various demographic and socioeconomic variables in relation to WTP, providing a comprehensive understanding of the factors at play. Findings: The results show that while a significant number of students are unwilling to pay for ChatGPT, those who are willing to pay generally prefer lower price points. There are notable relationships between WTP and all examined variables, with gender and the commercial use of ChatGPT being particularly influential. These findings suggest the need for targeted pricing strategies that consider diverse user groups and their financial capacities. Practical Implications: The study offers practical insights into developing effective pricing strategies for AI tools like ChatGPT, based on an understanding of the socioeconomic factors influencing users' WTP. These strategies are essential for enhancing market penetration, aligning with consumer financial abilities, and promoting broader adoption of the tool. Originality/Value: This research contributes to the existing literature by exploring the economic valuation of AI tools from a pricing perspective, an area that remains underexplored. It provides new insights into students' WTP for AI, addressing a critical gap in the understanding of consumer behavior in the digital age.

Suggested Citation

  • Iwona Lupa-Wojcik, 2024. "Students' Willingness to Pay for Access to ChatGPT," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(3), pages 730-745.
    • Handle: RePEc:ers:journl:v:xxvii:y:2024:i:3:p:730-745
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ersj.eu/journal/3462/download
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. J. A. Bouma & M. J. Koetse, 2019. "Mind the Gap: Stated versus Revealed Donations and the Differential Role of Behavioral Factors," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 95(2), pages 225-245.
    2. Börger, Tobias, 2013. "Keeping up appearances: Motivations for socially desirable responding in contingent valuation interviews," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 155-165.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Frings, Oliver & Abildtrup, Jens & Montagné-Huck, Claire & Gorel, Salomé & Stenger, Anne, 2023. "Do individual PES buyers care about additionality and free-riding? A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    2. Stephanie F. Stefanski & Jay P. Shimshack, 2016. "Valuing Marine Biodiversity in the Gulf of Mexico: Evidence from the Proposed Boundary Expansion of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(2), pages 211-232.
    3. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    4. Hagedoorn, Liselotte C. & Koetse, Mark J. & van Beukering, Pieter J.H. & Brander, Luke M., 2021. "Reducing the finance gap for nature-based solutions with time contributions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    5. Nilgen, Marco & Rode, Julian & Vorlaufer, Tobias & Vollan, Björn, 2024. "Measuring non-use values to proxy conservation preferences and policy impacts," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    6. Bockarjova, Marija & Botzen, Wouter J.W. & Koetse, Mark J., 2020. "Economic valuation of green and blue nature in cities: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    7. Endre Kildal Iversen & Kristine Grimsrud & Yohei Mitani & Henrik Lindhjem, 2022. "Altruist Talk May (also) Be Cheap: Revealed Versus Stated Altruism as a Predictor in Stated Preference Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 83(3), pages 681-708, November.
    8. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    9. Dimitrios Kalfas & Fotios Chatzitheodoridis & Efstratios Loizou & Katerina Melfou, 2022. "Willingness to Pay for Urban and Suburban Green," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-21, February.
    10. Xiong, Hang & Hu, Wuyang & Xu, Meng & Zhan, Jintao, 2024. "Revisiting heterogenous social desirability bias in consumer willingness to pay for food carbon label: Social norms and environmental concerns," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    11. Lehberger, Mira & Grüner, Sven, 2021. "Consumers’ willingness to pay for plants protected by beneficial insects – Evidence from two stated-choice experiments with different subject pools," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    12. Kiriaki M. Keramitsoglou & Katja Lozar Manfreda & Charalampia Anastasiou & Knut Kalgraff Skjak & Konstantinos P. Tsagarakis, 2018. "Mode comparison study on willingness to buy and willingness to pay for organic foods: paper-and-pencil versus computerized questionnaire," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 587-603, September.
    13. Lo, Alex Y. & Jim, C.Y., 2015. "Protest response and willingness to pay for culturally significant urban trees: Implications for Contingent Valuation Method," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 58-66.
    14. Ho, Thong Q. & Nguyen, Linh T-P. & Grote, Ulrike & Rahut, Dil B. & Sonobe, Tetsushi & Nguyen, Thanh T., 2024. "Gender and generosity: How contribution information triggers solidarity behavior during a crisis," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    15. Yiannis Kountouris & Kyriaki Remoundou, 2016. "Cultural Influence on Preferences and Attitudes for Environmental Quality," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(2), pages 369-397, May.
    16. Cokou Patrice Kpadé & Edouard Roméo Mensah & Michel Fok & Jupiter Ndjeunga, 2017. "Cotton farmers’ willingness to pay for pest management services in northern Benin," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 48(1), pages 105-114, January.
    17. Börger, Tobias & Ngoc, Quach Thi Khanh & Kuhfuss, Laure & Hien, Tang Thi & Hanley, Nick & Campbell, Danny, 2021. "Preferences for coastal and marine conservation in Vietnam: Accounting for differences in individual choice set formation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    18. Ho-Young Kim & So-Yeon Park & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2016. "Public Acceptability of Introducing a Biogas Mandate in Korea: A Contingent Valuation Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-16, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Willingness to Pay (WTP); ChatGPT; Pricing Strategies; Artificial Intelligence (AI); Socioeconomic Factors.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • A1 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics
    • D4 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design
    • M31 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Marketing

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ers:journl:v:xxvii:y:2024:i:3:p:730-745. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Marios Agiomavritis (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://ersj.eu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.