The Impact of Performance Expectancy, Workload, Risk, and Satisfaction on Trust in ChatGPT: Cross-Sectional Survey Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: ChatGPT (OpenAI) is a powerful tool for a wide range of tasks, from entertainment and creativity to health care queries. There are potential risks and benefits associated with this technology. In the discourse concerning the deployment of ChatGPT and similar large language models, it is sensible to recommend their use primarily for tasks a human user can execute accurately. As we transition into the subsequent phase of ChatGPT deployment, establishing realistic performance expectations and understanding users' perceptions of risk associated with its use are crucial in determining the successful integration of this artificial intelligence (AI) technology. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to explore how perceived workload, satisfaction, performance expectancy, and risk-benefit perception influence users' trust in ChatGPT. METHODS: A semistructured, web-based survey was conducted with 607 adults in the United States who actively use ChatGPT. The survey questions were adapted from constructs used in various models and theories such as the technology acceptance model, the theory of planned behavior, the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology, and research on trust and security in digital environments. To test our hypotheses and structural model, we used the partial least squares structural equation modeling method, a widely used approach for multivariate analysis. RESULTS: A total of 607 people responded to our survey. A significant portion of the participants held at least a high school diploma (n=204, 33.6%), and the majority had a bachelor's degree (n=262, 43.1%). The primary motivations for participants to use ChatGPT were for acquiring information (n=219, 36.1%), amusement (n=203, 33.4%), and addressing problems (n=135, 22.2%). Some participants used it for health-related inquiries (n=44, 7.2%), while a few others (n=6, 1%) used it for miscellaneous activities such as brainstorming, grammar verification, and blog content creation. Our model explained 64.6% of the variance in trust. Our analysis indicated a significant relationship between (1) workload and satisfaction, (2) trust and satisfaction, (3) performance expectations and trust, and (4) risk-benefit perception and trust. CONCLUSIONS: The findings underscore the importance of ensuring user-friendly design and functionality in AI-based applications to reduce workload and enhance user satisfaction, thereby increasing user trust. Future research should further explore the relationship between risk-benefit perception and trust in the context of AI chatbots.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".