The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2409.04099 · v2 · pith:RDSS2CX5 · submitted 2024-09-06 · cs.HC

What Guides Our Choices? Modeling Developers' Trust and Behavioral Intentions Towards GenAI

Reviewed by Pithpith:RDSS2CX5open to challenge →

classification cs.HC
keywords toolsdevelopersgenaitrustcognitiveintentionsstylesinfluence
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

Generative AI (genAI) tools, such as ChatGPT or Copilot, are advertised to improve developer productivity and are being integrated into software development. However, misaligned trust, skepticism, and usability concerns can impede the adoption of such tools. Research also indicates that AI can be exclusionary, failing to support diverse users adequately. One such aspect of diversity is cognitive diversity -- variations in users' cognitive styles -- that leads to divergence in perspectives and interaction styles. When an individual's cognitive style is unsupported, it creates barriers to technology adoption. Therefore, to understand how to effectively integrate genAI tools into software development, it is first important to model what factors affect developers' trust and intentions to adopt genAI tools in practice? We developed a theoretically grounded statistical model to (1) identify factors that influence developers' trust in genAI tools and (2) examine the relationship between developers' trust, cognitive styles, and their intentions to use these tools in their work. We surveyed software developers (N=238) at two major global tech organizations: GitHub Inc. and Microsoft; and employed Partial Least Squares-Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) to evaluate our model. Our findings reveal that genAI's system/output quality, functional value, and goal maintenance significantly influence developers' trust in these tools. Furthermore, developers' trust and cognitive styles influence their intentions to use these tools in their work. We offer practical suggestions for designing genAI tools for effective use and inclusive user experience.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. A Study of LLMs' Preferences for Libraries and Programming Languages

    cs.SE 2025-03 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Empirical study of eight LLMs finds overuse of popular libraries like NumPy in up to 45% of unnecessary cases and strong default preference for Python even when suboptimal.

  2. Exploring Individual Factors in the Adoption of LLMs for Specific Software Engineering Purposes

    cs.SE 2025-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Survey of 188 engineers using SEM finds that UTAUT2 constructs influence LLM adoption differently across five SE purposes, with some factors showing negative effects when examined in isolation.