Design and behavior science in government-to-citizens cognitive-communication: a study towards an inclusive framework
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587 · see citing works
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483 · see citing works
A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research
Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, S. (2007) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222240302 · Cited by 7,832 · see citing works
The Nature of Theory in Information Systems1
Gregor, S. (2006) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148742 · Cited by 3,306 · see citing works
Understanding online purchase intentions: contributions from technology and trust perspectives
van der Heijden, H., Verhagen, T., & Creemers, M. (2003) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000445 · Cited by 1,230 · see citing works
On-line trust: concepts, evolving themes, a model
Corritore, C. L., Kracher, B., & Wiedenbeck, S. (2003) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/s1071-5819(03)00041-7 · Cited by 1,200 · see citing works
Artificial Intelligence Transforms the Future of Health Care
Noorbakhsh-Sabet, N., Zand, R., Zhang, Y., & Abedi, V. (2019) · The American Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2019.01.017 · Cited by 626 · see citing works
AI strategy of India: policy framework, adoption challenges and actions for government
Chatterjee, S. (2020) · Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy · doi:10.1108/tg-05-2019-0031 · Cited by 142 · see citing works
Reddick, C., & Anthopoulos, L. (2014) · Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy · doi:10.1108/tg-01-2014-0001 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Madan, R., & Ashok, M. (2023) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2022.101774 · Cited by 468 · see citing works
“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).”
Yigitcanlar, T., Li, R. Y. M., Beeramoole, P. B., & Paz, A. (2023) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2023.101833 · Cited by 142 · see citing works
- 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