Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38748635›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Users' continuance intention towards an AI painting application: An extended expectation confirmation model.

Xiaofan Yu, Yi Yang, Shuang Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Xiaofan YuPostdoctoral Research Station, Central Academy of Fine Arts, Beijing, China.
Yi YangSchool of Art, Soochow University, Suzhou, China.ORCID 0009-0007-2749-0926
Shuang LiPostdoctoral Research Station, Central Academy of Fine Arts, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0002-1661-9006

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the rapid advancement of technology, Artificial Intelligence (AI) painting has emerged as a leading intelligence service. This study aims to empirically investigate users' continuance intention toward AI painting applications by utilizing and expanding the Expectation Confirmation Model (ECM), Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), and the Flow Theory. A comprehensive research model is proposed. A total of 443 questionnaires were distributed to users with AI painting experiences for data collection. The hypotheses were tested through structural equation modeling. The primary conclusions drawn from this research include: 1) Confirmation plays a crucial role, significantly and positively predicting satisfaction and social impact. 2) Personal innovativeness has a significant effect on confirmation. 3) Satisfaction, flow experience, and social influence directly and positively predict intention, with social influence showing the most significant impact, while perceived usefulness, perceived enjoyment, and performance expectancy show no significant impact on intention. 4) Habit plays a negative moderating role in the association between social influence and continued intention to use. These findings offer valuable insights and inspiration for users seeking to understand the appropriate utilization of AI painting and provide actionable directions for the development of AI painting.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceIntentionPaintingsAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedModels, TheoreticalSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID38748635
PMCPMC11095712

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.