What Needs Attention? Prioritizing Drivers of Developers' Trust and Adoption of Generative AI
May 23, 2025 Β· Declared Dead Β· π arXiv.org
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Rudrajit Choudhuri, Bianca Trinkenreich, Rahul Pandita, Eirini Kalliamvakou, Igor Steinmacher, Marco Gerosa, Christopher Sanchez, Anita Sarma
arXiv ID
2505.17418
Category
cs.HC: Human-Computer Interaction
Cross-listed
cs.SE
Citations
6
Venue
arXiv.org
Last Checked
4 months ago
Abstract
Generative AI (genAI) tools promise productivity gains, yet miscalibrated trust and usage friction still hinder adoption. Moreover, genAI can be exclusionary, failing to adequately support diverse users. One such aspect of diversity is cognitive diversity, which leads to diverging interaction styles (e.g., a risk-averse developer may gate genAI outputs behind tests/review; a risk-tolerant one may prototype directly/fix issues post-hoc). When an individual's cognitive styles are unsupported, it creates additional usability barriers. Thus, to design tools that developers trust and use, we must first understand which factors shape their trust and intentions to use genAI at work? We developed a theoretical model of developers' trust and adoption of genAI through a large-scale survey (N = 238) conducted at GitHub and Microsoft. Using Partial Least Squares-Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), we found aspects related to genAI's system/output quality (e.g., presentation, safety/security, performance), functional value (e.g., educational/practical benefits), and goal maintenance (ability to sustain alignment with task goals) significantly influence trust, which, alongside developers' cognitive styles (i.e., risk tolerance, technophilic motivations, computer self-efficacy), affect adoption. An Importance-Performance Matrix Analysis (IPMA) identified high-importance factors where genAI underperforms, revealing targets for design improvement. We bolster these findings by qualitatively analyzing developers' reported challenges and risks of genAI use to uncover why these gaps persist in development contexts. We offer practical guidance for designing genAI tools that support effective, trustworthy, and inclusive developer-AI interactions.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Human-Computer Interaction
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need?
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Identifying Stable Patterns over Time for Emotion Recognition from EEG
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Questioning the AI: Informing Design Practices for Explainable AI User Experiences
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Learning for Sensor-based Human Activity Recognition: Overview, Challenges and Opportunities
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Educational data mining and learning analytics: An updated survey
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted