中文    English

Journal of library and information science in agriculture ›› 2024, Vol. 36 ›› Issue (2): 36-50.doi: 10.13998/j.cnki.issn1002-1248.24-0076

;

Previous Articles     Next Articles

User Willingness to Use Generative Artificial Intelligence Based on AIDUA Framework

WANG Weizheng1, QIAO Hong2, LI Xiaojun3,4, WANG Jingjing5   

  1. 1. Library of Shandong Normal University, Jinan 250358;
    2. Business School, Shandong Normal University, Jinan 250358;
    3. Digital Humanities Research Center, Qilu University of Technology (Shandong Academy of Sciences), Jinan 250014;
    4. Institute of Information, Qilu University of Technology (Shandong Academy of Sciences), Jinan 250014;
    5. School of Journalism and Communication, Shandong University, Jinan 250100
  • Received:2024-01-18 Online:2024-02-05 Published:2024-04-30

Abstract: [Purpose/Significance] Generative artificial intelligence (AI) technology has been widely used in many fields, and the application of this technology has become popular among researchers. However, there are few studies on the willingness of researchers willingness to accept generative AI. This leads to an insufficient understanding of the psychological mechanism, cognitive process and behavioral pattern of users' acceptance of generative AI, which limits the ability of theoretical innovation and practical exploration in user information behavior. This study focuses on researchers acceptance of generative AI. By studying the evaluation process of ChatGPT by college students, it explores the acceptance behavior of generative AI. At the same time, it verifies the applicability of the AIDUA model in the new context, and introduces the new variable of school identity, which further extends the AIDUA model. [Method/Process] Based on the cognitive assessment theory and the AI acceptance framework (AIDUA), this paper constructs a theoretical model of the intention to use generative artificial intelligence, and develops and empirically tests the theoretical model of the intention to use generative AI. Taking college students as the main research object, based on the maturity scale in authoritative literature at home and abroad, 8 variables and 29 observation variables such as social influence, hedonic motivation and anthropomorphism were designed. College students with experience in using generative AI were invited to participate in the questionnaire survey. SPSS26.0 was used to analyze the data from 294 valid questionnaires collected. SmartPLS 3.2.9 was used to construct a structural equation model to test the hypothesis, and the JN method was used to detect the regulatory effect. [Results/Conclusions] The study found that users went through three stages of decision making before using generative AI. The PLS-SEM results show that: 1) Social influence, hedonic motivation and anthropomorphism significantly affect performance expectancy and effort expectancy, and anthropomorphism is the strongest variable affecting performance expectancy and effort expectancy. 2) Performance expectancy and effort expectancy are significantly negatively correlated with negative emotions, while hedonic motivation has no significant effect on negative emotions. 3) Negative emotions are significantly negatively correlated with users' intension to use. 4) School identity moderates the relationship between effort expectancy and negative emotions. This study combines anthropomorphic research on college students' acceptance of generative AI, and provides a framework for the acceptance of generative AI. Researchers can use this framework to better study the acceptance of AI. This study has some limitations. In the future, we will focus on the following three aspects: 1) to evaluate the users' acceptance of generative AI in different usage scenarios. 2) to use samples of other groups to test the applicability of the model, such as civil servants, librarians, researchers and other groups. 3) to incorporate variables from other technology acceptance models into the model, such as ease of use and practicality.

Key words: generative artificial intelligence, ChatGPT, personification, user information behavior, willingness to use, digital literacy

CLC Number: 

  • G252
[1] 中华人民共和国中央人民政府.生成式人工智能服务管理暂行办法[EB/OL].[2024-03-15]. https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/202307/content_6891752.htm.
[2] OPENAI. ChatGPT: Optimizing language models for dialogue[EB/OL].[2023-05-12]. https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt/.
[3] Reuters: ChatGPT sets record for fastest-growing user base-analyst note[EB/OL].[2024-01-10].https://www.reuters.com/technology/chatgpt-sets-record-fastest-growing-user-base-analyst-note-2023-02-01/.
[4] DAVIDE C. Are ChatGPT and AlphaCode going to replace programmers?[J/OL]. Nature, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-04383-z.
[5] CHENG K, LI Z, HE Y.et al.Potential use of artificial intelligence in infectious disease: Take ChatGPT as an example[J]. Ann biomed eng, 2023, 51: 1130-1135.
[6] CARVALHO I, IVANOV S.ChatGPT for tourism: applications, benefits and risks[J]. Tourism review, 2024, 79(2): 290-303.
[7] DWIVEDI Y K, KSHETRI N, HUGHES L, et al.Opinion paper: "So what if ChatGPT wrote it?" Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy[J]. International journal of information management, 2023, 71: 102642.
[8] 白云, 李白杨, 毛进, 等. 从知识困境到认知陷阱: 生成式技术驱动型信息生态系统安全问题研究[J]. 信息资源管理学报, 2024, 14(1): 13-21.
BAI Y, LI B Y, MAO J, et al.From epistemological paradox to cogni-tive trap: Research on security issues of generative technology-driven information ecosystem[J]. Journal of information resources manage-ment, 2024, 14(1): 13-21.
[9] 张智雄, 曾建勋, 夏翠娟, 等. 回应AIGC的信息资源管理学人思考[J]. 农业图书情报学报, 2023, 35(1): 4-25.
ZHANG Z X, ZENG J X, XIA C J, et al.Information resource man-agement researchers' thinking about the opportunities and challenges of AIGC[J]. Journal of library and information science in agriculture, 2023, 35(1): 4-25.
[10] 张海, 刘畅, 王东波, 等. ChatGPT用户使用意愿影响因素研究[J]. 情报理论与实践, 2023, 46(4): 15-22.
ZHANG H, LIU C, WANG D B, et al.Research on the influencing factors of ChatGPT users' intention[J]. Information studies: Theory & application, 2023, 46(4): 15-22.
[11] 王若佳, 范科鸣, 刘智锋, 等. 生成式人工智能环境下用户信息检索式行为研究[J/OL].数据分析与知识发现: 1-15[2024-01-18]. http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/10.1478.G2.20240117.1057.008.html.
WANG R J, FAN K M, LIU Z F, et al. Research on user informa-tion retrieval behavior in generative artificial intelligence environ-ment[J/OL]. Data analysis and knowledge discovery: 1-15[2024-01-18]. http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/10.1478.G2.20240117.1057.008.html.
[12] SAGE K, SHERRIE-ANNE K, OSCAR O T.What factors contribute to the acceptance of artificial intelligence? A systematic review[J]. Telematics and informatics, 2023, 77: 101925.
[13] OpenAI. DALL.E2[EB/OL]. [2024-01-04]. https://openai.com/dall-e-2.
[14] BALAKRISHNAN J, ABED S S, JONES P.The role of meta-UTAUT factors, perceived anthropomorphism, perceived intelligence, and social self-efficacy in chatbot-based services?[J]. Technological forecasting and social change, 2022, 180(C): 121692.
[15] HUANG D H, CHUEH H E.Chatbot usage intention analysis: Veterinary consultation[J]. Journal of innovation & knowledge, 2020, 6(3): 135-144.
[16] EREN B.Determinants of customer satisfaction in chatbot use: Evidence from a banking application in Turkey[J]. International journal of bank marketing, 2021, 39(2): 294-311.
[17] PAULA C A, AURELIO G M.How should my chatbot interact? A survey on social characteristics in human-chatbot interaction design[J]. International journal of human-computer interaction, 2021, 37(8): 729-758.
[18] 曹忠鹏, 马慧楠, 严兴全. 聊天机器人服务失败中拟人化对顾客反应的影响[J]. 管理科学, 2023, 36(1): 106-118.
CAO Z P, MA H N, YAN X Q.Effect of the anthropomorphism on customer response in chatbots service failure[J]. Journal of management science, 2023, 36(1): 106-118.
[19] 王晰巍, 罗然, 刘宇桐, 等. 智慧图书馆在线聊天机器人使用行为影响因素及实证研究[J]. 情报学报, 2023, 42(2): 217-230.
WANG X W, LUO R, LIU Y T, et al.Influencing factors and empirical research on the usage behavior of smart library online chatbots[J]. Journal of the China society for scientific and technical information, 2023, 42(2): 217-230.
[20] HARINDER H, RADHA I, BRINDA S.Customer brand engagement through chatbots on bank websites-examining the antecedents and consequences[J]. International journal of human-computer interac-tion, 2022, 38(13): 1212-1227.
[21] DAVIS F D.Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology[J]. MIS quarterly, 1989, 13(3): 319-340.
[22] VENKATESH V, MORRIS M G, DAVIS G B, et al.User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view[J]. MIS quarterly, 2003, 27(3): 425-478.
[23] LU L, CAI R Y, GURSOY D.Developing and validating a service robot integration willingness scale[J]. International journal of hospitality management, 2019, 80: 36-51.
[24] LEE B, CRANAGE D.Causal attributions and overall blame of self-service technology (SST) failure: Different from service failures by employee and policy[J]. Journal of hospitality marketing & management, 2017, 27(1): 1-24.
[25] GURSOY D, CHI O H, LU L, et al.Consumers acceptance of artifi-cially intelligent device use in service delivery[J]. International journal of information management, 2019, 49(5): 157-169.
[26] LAZARUS R S, FOLKMAN S.Stress, appraisal, and coping[M]. New York: Springer Pub. Co., 1984.
[27] LAZARUS R S.Cognition and motivation in emotion[J]. The American psychologist, 1991, 46(4): 352-367.
[28] CHIU Y T, ZHU Y Q, CORBETT J.In the hearts and minds of employees: A model of pre-adoptive appraisal toward artificial intelligence in organizations[J]. International journal of information management, 2021, 60: 102379.
[29] LATANé B.The psychology of social impact[J]. American psychologist, 1981, 36(4): 343-356.
[30] RATHER. Investigating the impact of customer brand identification on hospitality brand loyalty: A social identity perspective[J]. Journal of hospitality marketing & management, 2018, 27(5): 487-513.
[31] SHARMA S, ISLAM N, SINGH G, et al. Why do retail customers adopt artificial intelligence (AI) based autonomous decision-making systems?[J]. IEEE transactions on engineering management, 2022, PP(99): 1-16.
[32] OLDEWEME A, M?RTINS J, WESTMATTELMANN D, et al. The role of transparency, trust, and social influence on uncertainty reduction in times of pandemics: Empirical study on the adoption of COVID-19 tracing apps[J]. Journal of medical Internet research, 2021, 23(2): e25893.
[33] BILL G.ChatGPT will "change our world" by making the workplace more efficient[EB/OL]. [2023-12-27].https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-chatgpt-says-will-change-our-world-interview-2023-2.
[34] HALL B, HENNINGSEN D D.Social facilitation and human-com-puter interaction[J]. Computers in human behavior, 2008, 24(6): 2965-2971.
[35] VENKATESH V, THONG J Y L, XU X. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology[J]. MIS quarterly, 2012, 36(1): 157-178.
[36] NIEMELA M, ARVOLA A, AALTONEN I.Monitoring the acceptance of a social service robot in a shopping mall: First fesults[C]//Proceedings of the Companion of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-robot Interaction, 2017: 225-226.
[37] FRYER L K, AINLEY M, THOMPSON A, et al.Stimulating and sustaining interest in a language course: An experimental comparison of Chatbot and Human task partners[J]. Comput hum behav, 2017, 75:461-468.
[38] LEE R, MURPHY J, SWILLEY E.The moderating influence of hedonic consumption in an extended theory of planned behaviour[J]. The service industries journal, 2009, 29(4): 539-555.
[39] KIM H Y, MCGILL A L.Minions for the rich? Financial status changes how consumers see products with anthropomorphic features[J]. Journal of consumer research, 2018, 45: 429-450.
[40] ACKERMAN E.Study: Nobody wants social robots that look like humans because they threaten our identity[J]. IEEE Spectrum, 2016: 1-5.
[41] GURSOY D.A critical review of determinants of information search behavior and utilization of online reviews in decision making process(invited paper for "luminaries" special issue of international journal of hospitality management)[J]. Pergamon, 2019, 76: 53-60.
[42] FESTINGER L.A theory of cognitive dissonance row[J]. Peterson and company, 1957, 72(1): 23-34.
[43] HAIR J F, RISHER J J, SARSTEDT M, et al.When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM[J]. European business review, 2019, 31(1): 2-24.
[1] GUO Jinbo. Effects of AIGC on Reader Trust in Library Information [J]. Journal of library and information science in agriculture, 2026, 38(4): 84-98.
[2] AN Lin. Governance of Personal Information Security in the Iteration of Generative AI: From the Perspective of the Technological Evolution of Large Models [J]. Journal of library and information science in agriculture, 2026, 38(4): 61-70.
[3] LI Baiyang, REN Shangsheng. Technical Evolution and Application Scenarios of Open-Source Agents:A Case Study of "OpenClaw" [J]. Journal of library and information science in agriculture, 2026, 38(4): 23-35.
[4] YI Chenhe, ZHANG Yuting. Risk Assessment and Early Warning of Generative Artificial Intelligence Impact on Network Public Opinion Based on Optimized BP Neural Network [J]. Journal of library and information science in agriculture, 2026, 38(2): 30-41.
[5] ZHANG Ling. Integrating Digital Humanities and Agricultural Knowledge Services A Simulation Modeling Perspectives [J]. Journal of library and information science in agriculture, 2026, 38(2): 79-89.
[6] SHEN Hongjie, SHEN Hongwei, WANG Junli. Generative AI Empowering Information Literacy Education in Digital Libraries: Path Exploration, Challenge Analysis, and Response Strategies [J]. Journal of library and information science in agriculture, 2025, 37(7): 50-60.
[7] ZHAI Jun, MENG Zihan, LI Fangsu, SHEN Lixin. AI Guides in Research Libraries of North America under the AI4S Context: Based on the Survey of 125 ARL Libraries [J]. Journal of library and information science in agriculture, 2025, 37(7): 35-49.
[8] SHI Xujie, YUAN Fan, LI Jia. Searching as Learning in the Context of Generative Artificial Intelligence: Technological Pathways, Behavioral Evolution, and Ethical Challenges [J]. Journal of library and information science in agriculture, 2025, 37(5): 40-57.
[9] ZHANG Li, WANG Bo, JING Shui. Generative AI-Driven Resource Discovery in Public Libraries: Service Optimization Based on a Dynamic Evaluation Model [J]. Journal of library and information science in agriculture, 2025, 37(5): 58-71.
[10] CUI Shaojie, LIU Yanping. Impact of Digital Literacy on Rural Governance Effectiveness: Based on the Survey of 306 Rural Residents in Xia County, Shanxi Province [J]. Journal of library and information science in agriculture, 2025, 37(4): 39-50.
[11] GOU Ruike, LUO Wei. Influencing Factors of Continuous Use Intention of "Generation Z" Users of an AIGC Platform [J]. Journal of library and information science in agriculture, 2025, 37(3): 66-80.
[12] WANG Xiaokun. Comparative Research on International Online Open Digital Literacy Assessment Tools [J]. Journal of library and information science in agriculture, 2025, 37(3): 53-65.
[13] SUN Zhimei, LIU Yan, LIU Wenyun, LI Ruiqin. Perception and Utilization of Digital Literacy Knowledge by University Library Users from Representational Pers Perspective [J]. Journal of library and information science in agriculture, 2025, 37(2): 23-36.
[14] QIAO Jinhua, MA Xueyun. Risks and Regulations for Application of the LLaMA Model in University Future Learning Centers [J]. Journal of library and information science in agriculture, 2025, 37(2): 37-48.
[15] SUN Lijuan. Exploring the Transition of Public Librarians to "Prompt Librarians" from the Perspective of New Quality Productive Forces [J]. Journal of library and information science in agriculture, 2025, 37(1): 17-32.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!