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.
more »
« less
Using Health Concept Surveying to Elicit Usable Evidence: Case Studies of a Novel Evaluation Methodology
Background Developers, designers, and researchers use rapid prototyping methods to project the adoption and acceptability of their health intervention technology (HIT) before the technology becomes mature enough to be deployed. Although these methods are useful for gathering feedback that advances the development of HITs, they rarely provide usable evidence that can contribute to our broader understanding of HITs. Objective In this research, we aim to develop and demonstrate a variation of vignette testing that supports developers and designers in evaluating early-stage HIT designs while generating usable evidence for the broader research community. Methods We proposed a method called health concept surveying for untangling the causal relationships that people develop around conceptual HITs. In health concept surveying, investigators gather reactions to design concepts through a scenario-based survey instrument. As the investigator manipulates characteristics related to their HIT, the survey instrument also measures proximal cognitive factors according to a health behavior change model to project how HIT design decisions may affect the adoption and acceptability of an HIT. Responses to the survey instrument were analyzed using path analysis to untangle the causal effects of these factors on the outcome variables. Results We demonstrated health concept surveying in 3 case studies of sensor-based health-screening apps. Our first study (N=54) showed that a wait time incentive could influence more people to go see a dermatologist after a positive test for skin cancer. Our second study (N=54), evaluating a similar application design, showed that although visual explanations of algorithmic decisions could increase participant trust in negative test results, the trust would not have been enough to affect people’s decision-making. Our third study (N=263) showed that people might prioritize test specificity or sensitivity depending on the nature of the medical condition. Conclusions Beyond the findings from our 3 case studies, our research uses the framing of the Health Belief Model to elicit and understand the intrinsic and extrinsic factors that may affect the adoption and acceptability of an HIT without having to build a working prototype. We have made our survey instrument publicly available so that others can leverage it for their own investigations.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1813675
- PAR ID:
- 10357271
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- JMIR Human Factors
- Volume:
- 9
- Issue:
- 1
- ISSN:
- 2292-9495
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- e30474
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
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.more » « less
-
Mukherjee, Amitava (Ed.)What influences the adoption of SARS-CoV-2 mitigation behaviors–both personal, such as mask wearing and frequent handwashing, and social, such as avoiding large gatherings and physical contact–across countries? Understanding why some individuals are more willing to change their behavior to mitigate the spread of a pandemic will not only help us to address the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic but also to respond to future ones. Researchers have pointed to a variety of factors that may influence individual adoption of personal and social mitigation behaviors, including social inequality, risk perception, personality traits, and government policies. While not denying the importance of these factors, we argue that the role of trust and confidence has received insufficient attention to date. Our study explores whether there is a difference in the way trust and confidence in particular leaders and organizations affect individual compliance and whether this effect is consistent across different types of mitigation behaviors. Specifically, we utilize an original cross-national survey conducted during the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (May-June 2020) to investigate how trust in scientists, medical professionals, politicians, and religious leaders and confidence in global, national, and local health organizations affects individual compliance in 16 countries/territories across five world regions. Our analyses, which control for the aforementioned factors as well as several others, suggest that trust in politicians and confidence in national health ministries have the most consistent influence on whether individuals adopt both personal and social mitigation behaviors. Across our sample, we find that greater trust in politicians is associated with lower levels of individual compliance with public health directives, whereas greater confidence in the national health ministry is associated with higher levels of individual compliance. Our findings suggest the need to understand trust and confidence as among the most important individual level characteristics driving compliance when developing and delivering messaging about the adoption of mitigation behaviors. The content of the message, it seems, will be most effective when citizens across countries trust its source. Trusted sources, such as politicians and the national health ministry, should thus consider working closely together when determining and communicating recommended health behaviors to avoid contradicting one another.more » « less
-
The respective benefits and drawbacks of manual food journaling and automated dietary monitoring (ADM) suggest the value of semi-automated journaling systems combining the approaches. However, the current understanding of how people anticipate strategies for implementing semi-automated food journaling systems is limited. We therefore conduct a speculative survey study with 600 responses, examining how people anticipate approaches to automatic capture and prompting for details. Participants feel the location and detection capability of ADM sensors influences anticipated physical, social, and privacy burdens. People more positively anticipate prompts which contain information relevant to their journaling goals, help them recall what they ate, and are quick to respond to. Our work suggests a tradeoff between ADM systems' detection performance and anticipated acceptability, with sensors on facial areas having higher performance but lower acceptability than sensors in other areas and more usable prompting methods like those containing specific foods being more challenging to produce than manual reminders. We suggest opportunities to improve higher-acceptability, lower-accuracy ADM sensors, select approaches based on individual and practitioner journaling needs, and better describe capabilities to potential users.more » « less
-
Privacy Attitudes and COVID Symptom Tracking Apps: Understanding Active Boundary Management by UsersMultiple symptom tracking applications (apps) were created during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. While they provided crowdsourced information about the state of the pandemic in a scalable manner, they also posed significant privacy risks for individuals. The present study investigates the interplay between individual privacy attitudes and the adoption of symptom tracking apps. Using the communication privacy theory as a framework, it studies how users’ privacy attitudes changed during the public health emergency compared to the pre-COVID times. Based on focus-group interviews (N = 21), this paper reports significant changes in users’ privacy attitudes toward such apps. Research participants shared various reasons for both increased acceptability (e.g., disease uncertainty, public good) and decreased acceptability (e.g., reduced utility due to changed lifestyle) during COVID. The results of this study can assist health informatics researchers and policy designers in creating more socially acceptable health apps in the future.more » « less
An official website of the United States government

