PreprintCited by 473Technology Adoption and User BehaviourAI in Service InteractionsHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety

Investigating the Impact of User Trust on the Adoption and Use of ChatGPT: Survey Analysis (Preprint)

Open access
Choudhury, Avishek, Shamszare, Hamid·2023·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Preprint — published as 10.2196/47184 · Paper page

Abstract

BACKGROUND: ChatGPT (Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer) has gained popularity for its ability to generate human-like responses. It is essential to note that overreliance or blind trust in ChatGPT, especially in high-stakes decision-making contexts, can have severe consequences. Similarly, lacking trust in the technology can lead to underuse, resulting in missed opportunities. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the impact of users’ trust in ChatGPT on their intent and actual use of the technology. Four hypotheses were tested: (1) users’ intent to use ChatGPT increases with their trust in the technology; (2) the actual use of ChatGPT increases with users’ intent to use the technology; (3) the actual use of ChatGPT increases with users’ trust in the technology; and (4) users’ intent to use ChatGPT can partially mediate the effect of trust in the technology on its actual use. METHODS: This study distributed a web-based survey to adults in the United States who actively use ChatGPT (version 3.5) at least once a month between February 2023 through March 2023. The survey responses were used to develop 2 latent constructs: Trust and Intent to Use, with Actual Use being the outcome variable. The study used partial least squares structural equation modeling to evaluate and test the structural model and hypotheses. RESULTS: In the study, 607 respondents completed the survey. The primary uses of ChatGPT were for information gathering (n=219, 36.1%), entertainment (n=203, 33.4%), and problem-solving (n=135, 22.2%), with a smaller number using it for health-related queries (n=44, 7.2%) and other activities (n=6, 1%). Our model explained 50.5% and 9.8% of the variance in Intent to Use and Actual Use, respectively, with path coefficients of 0.711 and 0.221 for Trust on Intent to Use and Actual Use, respectively. The bootstrapped results failed to reject all 4 null hypotheses, with Trust having a significant direct effect on both Intent to Use (β=0.711, 95% CI 0.656-0.764) and Actual Use (β=0.302, 95% CI 0.229-0.374). The indirect effect of Trust on Actual Use, partially mediated by Intent to Use, was also significant (β=0.113, 95% CI 0.001-0.227). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that trust is critical to users’ adoption of ChatGPT. It remains crucial to highlight that ChatGPT was not initially designed for health care applications. Therefore, an overreliance on it for health-related advice could potentially lead to misinformation and subsequent health risks. Efforts must be focused on improving the ChatGPT’s ability to distinguish between queries that it can safely handle and those that should be redirected to human experts (health care professionals). Although risks are associated with excessive trust in artificial intelligence–driven chatbots such as ChatGPT, the potential risks can be reduced by advocating for shared accountability and fostering collaboration between developers, subject matter experts, and human factors researchers.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/preprints.47184

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 51 · Cited by 473

Authors
Choudhury, A., & Shamszare, H.
Affiliations
West Virginia University (US)
Corresponding author
Choudhury, Avishek
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2023-03-10
Volume
25
Pages
e47184-e47184
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4378214315
Cited by
473
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 146 · 2025: 174 · 2024: 115 · 2023: 37
FWCI
120.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
Keywords
ChatGPT, user trust, technology adoption, technology use, intention to use, actual use, large language models, generative AI, information gathering, problem solving, entertainment use, overreliance on AI, high-stakes decision making, AI safety, AI governance, AI regulation, AI literacy
MeSH terms
Adult, Artificial Intelligence, Health Personnel, Humans, Surveys and Questionnaires, Intention, Trust

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