Cited by 26E-Government and Public ServicesInnovative Human-Technology InteractionSmart Cities and Technologies

Design and behavior science in government-to-citizens cognitive-communication: a study towards an inclusive framework

Chohan, Sohail Raza, Hu, Guangwei, Khan, Asad Ullah, Pasha, Ahmad Tisman, Sheikh, Muhammad Atif·2021·Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to describe the application of design and behavior science collectively in refining the government to citizens’ (G2C) cognitive-communication by using artificial intelligence (AI) artifacts. It investigates the citizens’ behavior intention to use AI cognitive-communication channels in e-government services. Design/methodology/approach: This study reveals the potential of unification in design and behavior science paradigms when integrated into AI artifacts in measuring the constructive outcome of proposed architecture that embraces the perceived risk and trust in citizens’ usage behavior intentions. To evaluate the practical relevance of design science paradigm, action research was incorporated by developing an app as an exemplified scenario. Findings: The weaknesses of traditional G2C channel communication obliterated by AI virtual agents. This study proposes a five-layer architecture model created with citizens-centered design highlighting the improved relevance for G2C cognitive-communication. The behavior model supports citizens’ usage behavior intentions through trust as a positive attribute and negative attribute as a perceived risk. Research limitations/implications: This study contributes to the knowledge of design science paradigm particularly to AI-based cognitive G2C communication. The architecture serves for deploying virtual agents to automate the public officials for decision-making processes. The authors have constructed a cognitive-communication model and have examined the relationships among the extents of cognitive-communication model. This channel has the potential to significantly transform G2C cognitive and intelligent communication. Practical implications: This cognitive-communication channel has the potential to significantly transform the communication between government and citizens. Such a model can be an interest of developers, researchers and government policymakers in a holistic approach drawn from theory and methods of both design and behavior science to create a successful communication scenario. Social implications: Advances in technology are not without social implications. The study results can dramatically improve the efficiencies of government workplaces and can augment the human working. It will help to reduce the government services discriminations among the citizens and contribute to society through social inclusion. Originality/value: This study addresses the duality in information system research by first defining the theoretical framework for G2C cognitive-communication architecture and then developing a research model drawn upon a citizens’ service usage behavioral theory. It will also contribute to providing important perceptions of AI practices in the public sector.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/tg-05-2020-0079

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Citizens' perceptions of sharing data and its use by algorithms to make public decisions play a crucial role in public value deliberations related to innovations.

    “Citizens' perceptions of sharing data and its use by algorithms to make public decisions play a crucial role in public value deliberations related to innovations (Chohan, Hu, Khan, Pasha, & Sheikh, 2021;Criado & Gil-Garcia, 2019;Giest, 2017;Lopes, Macadar, & Luciano, 2019;Misuraca, 2020).”

    From AI adoption and diffusion in public administration: A systematic literature review and future research agenda (2023) · cites this paper as Chohan, Hu, Khan, Pasha, & Sheikh, 2021

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chohan, S. R., Hu, G., Khan, A. U., Pasha, A. T., & Sheikh, M. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Education (PK)
  • Nanjing University (CN)
  • Bahauddin Zakariya University (PK)
  • University of Sialkot (PK)
Venue
Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2021-02-15
Volume
15
Issue
4
Pages
532-549
ISSN
1750-6166 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3129291259
Cited by
26
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2
FWCI
10.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Transforming Government People Process and Policy (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › E-Government and Public Services
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Media Technology › Smart Cities and Technologies
Keywords
cognitive communication, artificial intelligence in public services, virtual agents, e-government, behavioral intention, trust in AI, risk perception, social inclusion, public sector AI adoption

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review