Adoption of AI writing tools among academic researchers: A Theory of Reasoned Action approach.

IF 2.9 3区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
PLoS ONE Pub Date : 2025-01-09 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0313837
Mohammed A Al-Bukhrani, Yasser Mohammed Hamid Alrefaee, Mohammed Tawfik
{"title":"Adoption of AI writing tools among academic researchers: A Theory of Reasoned Action approach.","authors":"Mohammed A Al-Bukhrani, Yasser Mohammed Hamid Alrefaee, Mohammed Tawfik","doi":"10.1371/journal.pone.0313837","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This research explores the determinants affecting academic researchers' acceptance of AI writing tools using the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA). The impact of attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived barriers on researchers' intentions to adopt these technologies is examined through a cross-sectional survey of 150 researchers. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) is employed to evaluate the measurement and structural models. Findings confirm the positive influence of favorable attitudes and subjective norms on intentions to use AI writing tools. Interestingly, perceived barriers did not significantly impact attitudes or intentions, suggesting that in the academic context, potential benefits may outweigh perceived obstacles to AI writing tool adoption. Contrarily, perceived barriers do not significantly affect attitudes and intentions directly. The TRA model demonstrates considerable explanatory and predictive capabilities, indicating its effectiveness in understanding AI writing tool adoption among researchers. The study's diverse sample across various disciplines and career stages provides insights that may be generalizable to similar academic contexts, though further research with larger samples is needed to confirm broader applicability. Results offer practical guidance for tool developers, academic institutions, and publishers aiming to foster responsible and efficient AI writing tool use in academia. Findings suggest strategies such as demonstrating clear productivity gains, establishing AI Writing Tool programs, and developing comprehensive training initiatives could promote responsible adoption. Strategies focusing on cultivating positive attitudes, leveraging social influence, and addressing perceived barriers could be particularly effective in promoting adoption. This pioneering study investigates researchers' acceptance of AI writing tools using a technology acceptance model, contributing to the understanding of technology adoption in professional contexts and highlighting the importance of field-specific factors in examining adoption intentions and behaviors.</p>","PeriodicalId":20189,"journal":{"name":"PLoS ONE","volume":"20 1","pages":"e0313837"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11717249/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS ONE","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313837","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This research explores the determinants affecting academic researchers' acceptance of AI writing tools using the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA). The impact of attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived barriers on researchers' intentions to adopt these technologies is examined through a cross-sectional survey of 150 researchers. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) is employed to evaluate the measurement and structural models. Findings confirm the positive influence of favorable attitudes and subjective norms on intentions to use AI writing tools. Interestingly, perceived barriers did not significantly impact attitudes or intentions, suggesting that in the academic context, potential benefits may outweigh perceived obstacles to AI writing tool adoption. Contrarily, perceived barriers do not significantly affect attitudes and intentions directly. The TRA model demonstrates considerable explanatory and predictive capabilities, indicating its effectiveness in understanding AI writing tool adoption among researchers. The study's diverse sample across various disciplines and career stages provides insights that may be generalizable to similar academic contexts, though further research with larger samples is needed to confirm broader applicability. Results offer practical guidance for tool developers, academic institutions, and publishers aiming to foster responsible and efficient AI writing tool use in academia. Findings suggest strategies such as demonstrating clear productivity gains, establishing AI Writing Tool programs, and developing comprehensive training initiatives could promote responsible adoption. Strategies focusing on cultivating positive attitudes, leveraging social influence, and addressing perceived barriers could be particularly effective in promoting adoption. This pioneering study investigates researchers' acceptance of AI writing tools using a technology acceptance model, contributing to the understanding of technology adoption in professional contexts and highlighting the importance of field-specific factors in examining adoption intentions and behaviors.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
PLoS ONE
PLoS ONE 生物-生物学
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
5.40%
发文量
14242
审稿时长
3.7 months
期刊介绍: PLOS ONE is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication. PLOS ONE welcomes reports on primary research from any scientific discipline. It provides: * Open-access—freely accessible online, authors retain copyright * Fast publication times * Peer review by expert, practicing researchers * Post-publication tools to indicate quality and impact * Community-based dialogue on articles * Worldwide media coverage
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信