The problems of AIGC platforms such as misinformation and algorithm bias may lower user intention of information adoption and lead to user defection. Based on the stimulus-organism-response (S-O-R) model, this research examined the impact of enablers and inhibitors on the information adoption of AIGC platform users. The results indicated that enablers, which include content quality, transparency, and perceived anthropomorphism, significantly affect user trust in AIGC, while inhibitors, which include information overload, misinformation, and algorithm bias, lead to user cognitive dissonance. Both trust in AIGC and cognitive dissonance affect information adoption. The results imply that AIGC platforms need to build user trust and lower user cognitive dissonance in order to facilitate user information adoption.
MaslejNFattoriniLPerraultR, et al. The AI index 2024 annual report. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, 2024.
2.
GaoA.From PGC to UGC to AIGC: change of content paradigm. SHS Web Conf2024; 199: 03017.
3.
ZhaXLuZYanY.Recommended information adoption by university students in their study/research. Electron Libr2024; 42: 664–680.
4.
SongSZhaoYCYaoX, et al. Serious information in hedonic social applications: affordances, self-determination and health information adoption in TikTok. J Doc2022; 78: 890–911.
5.
ChenQJinJYanX.Impact of online physician service quality on patients’ adoption behavior across different stages: an elaboration likelihood perspective. Decis Support Syst2024; 176: 114048.
6.
HanYJiangBGuoR.Factors affecting public adoption of COVID-19 prevention and treatment information during an infodemic: cross-sectional survey study. J Med Internet Res2021; 23: e23097.
7.
KhanAMSoroyaSHMahmoodK.Impact of information credibility on social media information adoption behavior: a systematic literature review. Libr Hi Tech2024; 42: 261–283.
8.
HeCShiLYuM, et al. Research on influencing factors of information adoption behavior of college students in cloud class. In: Proceedings of the 2024 international symposium on artificial intelligence for education, Xi’an, China, 6–8 September 2024.
9.
TsengS-YWangC-N.Perceived risk influence on dual-route information adoption processes on travel websites. J Bus Res2016; 69: 2289–2296.
10.
ZhangCChenJFuX.A multilevel analysis of adoption intention of travel information on social media: evidence from China. Travel Behav Soc2023; 32: 100582.
11.
ShenXLZhangKZKZhaoSJ.Understanding information adoption in online review communities: the role of herd factors. In: Proceedings of the 2014 47th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Waikoloa, HI, 6–9 January 2014.
12.
KangT-CHungS-YHuangAH.The adoption of online product information: cognitive and affective evaluations. J Internet Commer2020; 19: 373–403.
13.
LeeKYYangS-B.The role of online product reviews on information adoption of new product development professionals. Internet Res2015; 25: 435–452.
14.
ChungNHanHKooC.Adoption of travel information in user-generated content on social media: the moderating effect of social presence. Behav Inf Technol2015; 34: 902–919.
15.
CuiYZhangH.Can student accurately identify artificial intelligence generated content? An exploration of AIGC credibility from user perspective in education. Educ Inf Technol2025; 30: 16321–16346.
16.
LiuJChenXLiuC, et al. Factors influencing adoption intentions to use AIGC for health information: findings from SEM and fsQCA. Front Public Health2025; 13: 1525879.
17.
ZhangJJWangYWRuanQ, et al. Digital tourism interpretation content quality: a comparison between AI-generated content and professional-generated content. Tour Manag Perspect2024; 53: 101279.
18.
YaoYWangXSunK.Research on key factors influencing Chinese designers’ use of AIGC: an extension based on TAM and TRI. PLoS One2025; 20: e0314306.
19.
JiangQZhangJWangP-H, et al. Technology acceptance and innovation diffusion: are users more inclined toward AIGC-assisted design?Int J Hum-Comput Interact2025; 41: 8370–8384.
20.
YangXDingJChenH, et al. Factors affecting the use of artificial intelligence generated content by subject librarians: a qualitative study. Heliyon2024; 10: e29584.
21.
WenHTLinXYLiuRK, et al. Enhancing college students’ AI literacy through human-AI co-creation: a quantitative study. Interact Learn Environ. Epub ahead of print 28April2025. DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2025.2495733.
22.
ZhouTLuH.The effect of trust on user adoption of AI-generated content. Electron Libr2025; 43: 61–76.
23.
LiCLinYChenR, et al. How do users adopt AI-generated content (AIGC)? An exploration of content cues and interactive cues. Technol Soc2025; 81: 102830.
24.
ZhaoLXuYZhouS-K.‘Positive’ or ‘Threatened’? The impact of the features in generative artificial intelligence on continued behavior. Comput Hum Behav2025; 168: 108654.
25.
YangZJiangY.How differential risk perception influences users’ positive information behaviour toward AIGC technologies: an analysis based on the Cognitive-Affective-Conative (CAC) model. Int J Hum-Comput Interact. Epub ahead of print 3July2025. DOI: 10.1080/10447318.2025.2526582.
26.
MehrabianARussellJA.An approach to environmental psychology. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1974.
27.
KumalasariRPriharsariD.Investigating the role of SNS design on Covid-19 information avoidance: the perspectives of the Stimulus-Organism-Response theory. Telemat Inform Rep2023; 11: 100083.
28.
WangJShahzadFAshrafSF.Elements of information ecosystems stimulating the online consumer behavior: a mediating role of cognitive and affective trust. Telemat Inform2023; 80: 101970.
29.
FangY-H.Beyond the credibility of electronic word of mouth: exploring eWOM adoption on social networking sites from affective and curiosity perspectives. Int J Electron Commer2014; 18: 67–102.
30.
ZaidiNKhanMNAhujaV.Intention to adopt user generated content on virtual travel communities: exploring the mediating role of attitude. Tour Hosp Res2023; 23: 285–297.
31.
HamidRSUkkasIGosoG, et al. The role of social media in building trust, self-perceived creativity and satisfaction for millennial entrepreneurs. J Small Bus Enterp Dev2024; 31: 377–394.
32.
ChakrabortyUBiswalSK.Is ChatGPT a responsible communication: a study on the credibility and adoption of conversational artificial intelligence. J Promot Manag2024; 30: 929–958.
33.
JobinAIencaMVayenaE.The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nat Mach Intell2019; 1: 389–399.
34.
ShinDKoerberALimJS.Impact of misinformation from generative AI on user information processing: how people understand misinformation from generative AI. New Media Soc2025; 27: 4017–4047.
35.
ShaoZZhangJZhangL.Exploring the technological potential and moral perils of generative AI in post-adoption use. In: Proceedings of the Pacific-Asia conference on information systems, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, 1–5 July 2024.
36.
RanaNPPillaiRSivathanuB, et al. Assessing the nexus of Generative AI adoption, ethical considerations and organizational performance. Technovation2024; 135: 103064.
37.
YuLLiY.Artificial intelligence decision-making transparency and employees’ trust: the parallel multiple mediating effect of effectiveness and discomfort. Behav Sci2022; 12: 127.
38.
MaXHuoY.Are users willing to embrace ChatGPT? Exploring the factors on the acceptance of chatbots from the perspective of AIDUA framework. Technol Soc2023; 75: 102362.
39.
BlutMWangCWünderlichNV, et al. Understanding anthropomorphism in service provision: a meta-analysis of physical robots, chatbots, and other AI. J Acad Mark Sci2021; 49: 632–658.
40.
BhatnagrPRajeshAMisraR.Continuous intention usage of artificial intelligence enabled digital banks: a review of expectation confirmation model. J Enterp Inf Manag2024; 37: 1763–1787.
41.
WiederholdBK.The rise of AI companions and the quest for authentic connection. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw2024; 27: 524–526.
42.
ChaturvediRVermaSDasR, et al. Social companionship with artificial intelligence: recent trends and future avenues. Technol Forecast Soc Change2023; 193: 122634.
43.
EdwardsCBeattieAJEdwardsA, et al. Differences in perceptions of communication quality between a Twitterbot and human agent for information seeking and learning. Comput Hum Behav2016; 65: 666–671.
44.
LiQLuximonYZhangJ.The influence of anthropomorphic cues on patients’ perceived anthropomorphism, social presence, trust building, and acceptance of health care conversational agents: within-subject web-based experiment. J Med Internet Res2023; 25: e44479.
45.
LiYLeeSO.Navigating the generative AI travel landscape: the influence of ChatGPT on the evolution from new users to loyal adopters. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag2025; 37: 1421–1447.
46.
PrzegalinskaACiechanowskiLStrozA, et al. In bot we trust: a new methodology of chatbot performance measures. Bus Horiz2019; 62: 785–797.
47.
SiauKWangW.Building trust in artificial intelligence, machine learning, and robotics. Cut Bus Technol J2018; 31: 47–53.
48.
ShinD.The effects of explainability and causability on perception, trust, and acceptance: implications for explainable AI. Int J Hum-Comput Stud2021; 146: 102551.
49.
HabbalAAliMKAbuzaraidaMA.Artificial Intelligence Trust, Risk and Security Management (AI TRiSM): frameworks, applications, challenges and future research directions. Expert Syst Appl2024; 240: 122442.
50.
Shahin SharifiSRahim EsfidaniM. The impacts of relationship marketing on cognitive dissonance, satisfaction, and loyalty: the mediating role of trust and cognitive dissonance. Int J Retail Distrib Manag2014; 42: 553–575.
51.
HuoCZhangMMaF.Factors influencing people’s health knowledge adoption in social media. Libr Hi Tech2018; 36: 129–151.
52.
EdmundsAMorrisA.The problem of information overload in business organisations: a review of the literature. Int J Inf Manag2000; 20: 17–28.
53.
ZhangMLiSLinW, et al. Escape or return? Users’ intermittent discontinuance behavior in strong-ties social functions. Inf Manag2024; 61: 103902.
54.
HoqKMG. Information overload: causes, consequences and remedies – a study. Philos Prog2014; 55: 49–68.
55.
PangH.How compulsive WeChat use and information overload affect social media fatigue and well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic? A stressor-strain-outcome perspective. Telemat Inform2021; 64: 101690.
56.
ZhangSPanY.Mind over matter: examining the role of cognitive dissonance and self-efficacy in discontinuous usage intentions on pan-entertainment mobile live broadcast platforms. Behav Sci2023; 13: 254.
57.
LvJLiuX.The impact of information overload of E-commerce platform on consumer return intention: considering the moderating role of perceived environmental effectiveness. Int J Environ Res Public Health2022; 19: 8060.
58.
SunYShengDZhouZ, et al. AI hallucination: towards a comprehensive classification of distorted information in artificial intelligence-generated content. Humanit Soc Sci Commun2024; 11: 1278.
59.
WeidingerLUesatoJRauhM, et al. Taxonomy of risks posed by language models. In: Proceedings of the 2022 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 21–24 June 2022.
60.
ZhouQLiBScheibenzuberC, et al. Fake news land? Exploring the impact of social media affordances on user behavioral responses: a mixed-methods research. Comput Hum Behav2023; 148: 107889.
61.
FeatherstoneJDZhangJ.Feeling angry: the effects of vaccine misinformation and refutational messages on negative emotions and vaccination attitude. J Health Commun2020; 25: 692–702.
62.
TaddickenMWolffL.‘Fake news’ in science communication: emotions and strategies of coping with dissonance online. Media Commun2020; 8: 206–217.
63.
De RoockRS. To become an object among objects: generative artificial ‘intelligence’, writing, and linguistic White supremacy. Read Res Q2024; 59: 590–608.
64.
YangQLeeY-C.Ethical AI in financial inclusion: the role of algorithmic fairness on user satisfaction and recommendation. Big Data Cogn Comput2024; 8: 105.
65.
FestingerL.A theory of cognitive dissonance. New York: Stanford University Press, 1957.
66.
MorvanCO’ConnorA.An analysis of Leon Festinger’s a theory of cognitive dissonance. London: Macat Library, 2017.
67.
WilkinsSBeckenuyteCButtMM.Consumers’ behavioural intentions after experiencing deception or cognitive dissonance caused by deceptive packaging, package downsizing or slack filling. Eur J Mark2016; 50: 213–235.
68.
LvXLiJWangQ.The dark side of recommendation algorithms in Chinese mass short video apps: effect of perceived over-recommendation on users’ cognitive dissonance and discontinuance intention. Int J Hum-Comput Interact2025; 41: 6701–6715.
69.
ChenJJiangYZhengT.Unraveling the double-edged sword effect of AI transparency on algorithmic acceptance. In: Proceedings of the Pacific-Asia conference on information systems, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, 1–5 July 2024.
70.
HalimEPWardayaPRAARiantoA, et al. The impact of marketing influencer and information quality to purchase intention of Instagram users. In: Proceedings of the 2020 international conference on information management and technology (ICIMTech), Bandung, Indonesia, 13–14 August 2020.
71.
HuangLDongXYuanH, et al. Enabling and inhibiting factors of the continuous use of mobile short video APP: satisfaction and fatigue as mediating variables respectively. Psychol Res Behav Manag2023; 16: 3001–3017.
72.
DeoSMohantyASharmaD, et al. Misinformation as a determinant of response to COVID 19. Int J Public Opin Res2024; 36: edae010.
73.
LiuYSunX.Towards more legitimate algorithms: a model of algorithmic ethical perception, legitimacy, and continuous usage intentions of e-commerce platforms. Comput Hum Behav2024; 150: 108006.
74.
PhamHCDuongCDNguyenGKH. What drives tourists’ continuance intention to use ChatGPT for travel services? A stimulus-organism-response perspective. J Retail Consum Serv2024; 78: 103758.
75.
ChenTLiXDuanY.The effects of cognitive dissonance and self-efficacy on short video discontinuous usage intention. Inf Technol People2024; 37: 1514–1539.
76.
KrausSRibeiro-SorianoDSchüsslerM.Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) in entrepreneurship and innovation research – the rise of a method. Int Entrep Manag J2018; 14: 15–33.
77.
RaginCC.Redesigning social inquiry: fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 2008.
78.
PappasIOWoodsideAG.Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA): guidelines for research practice in Information Systems and marketing. Int J Inf Manag2021; 58: 102310.
79.
ZhouTLiS. Understanding user switch of information seeking: from search engines to generative AI. J Librariansh Inf Sci. Epub ahead of print 10April2025. DOI: 10.1177/09610006241244800.
80.
ShenXLCheungCMLeeMK.What leads students to adopt information from Wikipedia? An empirical investigation into the role of trust and information usefulness. Br J Educ Technol2013; 44: 502–517.
