Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

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

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

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

classification cs.HC
keywords toolsdevelopersgenaitrustcognitiveintentionsstylesinfluence
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
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.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. "Maybe We Need Some More Examples:" Individual and Team Drivers of Developer GenAI Tool Use

    cs.SE 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Frequent and infrequent GenAI tool users differ in how they perceive the tool, how they experiment, and how they respond to failure, and organizational support shapes these differences.

  2. Understanding the Practices, Perceptions, and (Dis)Trust of Generative AI among Instructors: A Mixed-methods Study in the U.S. Higher Education

    cs.HC 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Instructors' trust and distrust in generative AI can coexist and are shaped by familiarity, teaching level, and ethical or pedagogical concerns, while hands-on classroom use remains limited.

Pith tools