Artificial intelligence has been one of the most prominent forces which have entered the marketing world recently. The force of being able to make recommendations to individuals, deploy chatbots while assisting them, create AI generated ads and analyse past data to predict future patterns has fundamentally changed the way in which modern consumers are engaged and influenced. This paper attempts to establish if there is a significant relationship between consumer perception towards the use of artificial intelligence in marketing and their acceptance of such marketing approaches amongst college students. A questionnaire was administered to one hundred and fifty college students using a five point likert scale. Analysis was done using the SPSS statistical tool. Two of the study’s main constructs Perception of AI powered marketing and acceptance of AI powered marketing together with the student’s age, gender, year of study and level of online interaction with brands were determined and subjected to statistical analysis. Descriptive statistics, cronbach’s alpha test, pearson’s correlation, linear regression, independent sample t-test and ANOVA were performed on the dataset. The study established that both constructs were positively highly reliable (Perception α = 0.913; Acceptance α = 0.969). Additionally, the study established that the two constructs were moderately positively correlated with each other (r = 0.619, p < 0.001), thus rejecting the null hypothesis. However, the study noted that the acceptance of AI powered marketing was highly dependent on the frequency of online shopping for students (ANOVA p < 0.001), though gender and age had no significant effect on either perception or acceptance of AI powered marketing. The study ultimately concludes that perception greatly influences the general acceptance of AI powered marketing by college students. The paper provides some suggestions on how marketers could make better impressions on customers’ perceptions of AI powered marketing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tinwala et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: