Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Advertisement

Scientific Reports
  • View all journals
  • Search
  • My Account Login
  • Content Explore content
  • About the journal
  • Publish with us
  • Sign up for alerts
  • RSS feed
  1. nature
  2. scientific reports
  3. articles
  4. article
Factors influencing user adoption of AI painting tools based on the AIDUA model
Download PDF
Download PDF
  • Article
  • Open access
  • Published: 10 April 2026

Factors influencing user adoption of AI painting tools based on the AIDUA model

  • Yang Li1,2,
  • Hwee Ling Siek2 &
  • JinLing Guo3,4 

Scientific Reports , Article number:  (2026) Cite this article

  • 364 Accesses

  • Metrics details

We are providing an unedited version of this manuscript to give early access to its findings. Before final publication, the manuscript will undergo further editing. Please note there may be errors present which affect the content, and all legal disclaimers apply.

Subjects

  • Mathematics and computing
  • Psychology

Abstract

Artificial intelligence painting tools (AIPT) are increasingly integrated into creative practices, yet designers’ willingness to adopt them remains underexplored. This study applies the artificial intelligence device use acceptance (AIDUA) model, grounded in cognitive appraisal theory, to investigate factors influencing designers’ acceptance of AIPT. Using survey data from 480 respondents and structural equation modeling (SEM), we examined the interplay of supportive factors (perceived usefulness (PU), hedonic motivation (HM), social influence (SI), trust (TRU)) and opposing factors (perceived risk (PR)). Results indicate that hedonic motivation significantly reduces PR, while social consensus enhances trust, both of which shape attitude (ATT) and intentions toward AIPT. Theoretically, this study extends AIDUA to the creative domain, highlighting its value for explaining ambivalent adoption behavior. Practically, the findings provide actionable insights for developers and educators to enhance AIPT acceptance by addressing risk perceptions, improving transparency, and fostering supportive user communities.

Similar content being viewed by others

An empirical study on the use behavior towards AI painting tools based on TAM3 model

Article Open access 18 November 2025

Factors influencing digital media designers’ subscription to premium versions of AI drawing tools through a mixed methods study

Article Open access 08 May 2025

A study on user innovative behavior of AI painting tools integrating SOR and Self-Determination theory

Article Open access 14 February 2026

Data availability

Relevant data for the study are either included in the article or provided as supplementary materials. Additionally, datasets used and/or analyzed during this research are accessible from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Sestino, A. & De Mauro, A. Leveraging artificial intelligence in business: Implications, applications and methods.. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 34, 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2021.1883583 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Han, Z. Combined development of artificial intelligence and art design. In 2021 6th International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Signal Processing (ICSP), vol. 6, 1023–1026 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSP51882.2021.9408896.

  3. Li, L. The impact of artificial intelligence painting on contemporary art from disco diffusion’s painting creation experiment. In 2022 International Conference on Frontiers of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning (FAIML), 52–56 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1109/FAIML57028.2022.00020.

  4. Xu, J., Zhang, X., Li, H., Yoo, C. & Pan, Y. Is everyone an artist? A study on designer experience of ai-based painting system.. Appl. Sci. 13, 6496. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13116496 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Gangadharbatla, H. The role of AI attribution knowledge in the evaluation of artwork. Empir. Stud. Arts. 40, 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276237421994697 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hertzmann, A. Can computers create art?. Arts 7, 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/arts7020018 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Boden, M. A. Creativity and artificial intelligence. Artif. Intell. 103, 347–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0004-3702(98)00055-1 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Chatterjee, A. Art in an age of artificial intelligence.. Front. Psychol. 13, 1024449. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1024449 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. & Xu, X. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Q. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Lazarus, R. S. Cognition and motivation in emotion.. Am. Psychol. 46, 352. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X46.4.352 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kulviwat, S., Bruner, G. C. II., Kumar, A., Nasco, S. A. & Clark, T. Toward a unified theory of consumer acceptance technology.. Psychol. Mark. 24, 1059–1084. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20196 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Niemelä, M., Arvola, A. & Aaltonen, I. Monitoring the acceptance of a social service robot in a shopping mall: First results. In Proceedings of the Companion of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-robot Interaction, 225–226 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3029798.3038333.

  13. Gursoy, D., Chi, O. H., Lu, L. & Nunkoo, R. Consumers acceptance of artificially intelligent (AI) device use in service delivery.. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 49, 157–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.03.008 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lu, L., Cai, R. & Gursoy, D. Developing and validating a service robot integration willingness scale.. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 80, 36–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.01.005 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Mortenson, M. J. & Vidgen, R. A computational literature review of the technology acceptance model. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 36, 1248–1259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.07.007 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Sohn, K. & Kwon, O. Technology acceptance theories and factors influencing artificial intelligence-based intelligent products. Telemat. Inform. 47, 101324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2019.101324 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gursoy, D. & Chi, C. G. Effects of COVID-19 pandemic on hospitality industry: Review of the current situations and a research agenda. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 29, 527–529. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2020.1788231 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Althuizen, N. Using structural technology acceptance models to segment intended designers of a new technology: Propositions and an empirical illustration. Inf. Syst. J. 28, 879–904. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12172 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gottumukkala, S. & Prasad, S. S. Decoding the organisational AI adoption: What do theories and frameworks reveal?. J. Int. Commer. Law Technol. 6, 744–754. https://doi.org/10.61336/Jiclt/25-01-72 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Bai, X. & Yang, L. Research on the influencing factors of generative artificial intelligence usage intent in post-secondary education: An empirical analysis based on the AIDUA extended model. Front. Psychol. 16, 1644209. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1644209 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Verma, P. & Sinha, N. Integrating perceived economic well being to technology acceptance model: The case of mobile based agricultural extension service. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 126, 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.08.013 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Gursoy, D., Del Chiappa, G. & Zhang, Y. Preferences regarding external information sources: A conjoint analysis of visitors to Sardinia, Italy. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 34, 806–820. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2016.1237405 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hubert, M. et al. The influence of acceptance and adoption drivers on smart home usage. Eur. J. Mark. 53, 1073–1098. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-12-2016-0794 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Liaw, S. S. Investigating students’ perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of e-learning: A case study of the Blackboard system. Comput. Educ. 51, 864–873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.005 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Haverila, M. J., McLaughlin, C. & Haverila, K. The impact of social influence on perceived usefulness and behavioral intentions in the usage of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). Int. J. Healthc. Manag. 16(1), 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/20479700.2022.2082635 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Koenig-Lewis, N., Marquet, M., Palmer, A. & Zhao, A. L. Enjoyment and SI: Predicting mobile payment adoption. Serv. Ind. J. 35, 537–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2015.1043278 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kesharwani, A. & Singh Bisht, S. The impact of trust and perceived risk on internet banking adoption in India: An extension of technology acceptance model. Int. J. Bank Mark. 30, 303–322. https://doi.org/10.1108/02652321211236923 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Allam, H., Bliemel, M., Spiteri, L., Blustein, J. & Ali-Hassan, H. Applying a multi-dimensional hedonic concept of intrinsic motivation on social tagging tools: A theoretical model and empirical validation. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 45, 211–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.11.005 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Garas, S. R. R. Susceptibility to social influence the mediating role of perceived risk and attitudes when considering a counterfeit purchase choice. EuroMed J. Bus. 20(4), 1119–1148. https://doi.org/10.1108/EMJB-09-2023-0251 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Li, W. A study on factors influencing designers’ behavioral intention in using AI-generated content for assisted design: Perceived anxiety, perceived risk, and UTAUT. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 41(2), 1064–1077. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2024.2310354 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Fryer, L. K., Ainley, M., Thompson, A., Gibson, A. & Sherlock, Z. Stimulating and sustaining interest in a language course: An experimental comparison of chatbot and human task partners. Comput. Hum. Behav. 75, 461–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.05.045 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Alalwan, A. A., Dwivedi, Y. K., Rana, N. P., Lal, B. & Williams, M. D. Consumer adoption of Internet banking in Jordan: Examining the role of hedonic motivation, habit, self-efficacy and trust. J. Financ. Serv. Mark. 20, 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1057/fsm.2015.5 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Nizam, D. N. M. & Law, E.L.-C. Derivation of young children’s interaction strategies with digital educational games from gaze sequences analysis. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 146, 102558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102558 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Pagnanelli, M. A., Colamatteo, A., Cassia, F. & Sansone, M. Unveiling user intentions: An integrated analysis of hedonic motivation and service quality in e-grocery technology acceptance. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 42(7), 1933–1950. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-02-2024-0062 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Chakraborti, T. et al. Personalized uncertainty quantification in artificial intelligence. Nat. Mach. Intell. 7, 522–530. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-025-01024-8 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Wu, J., Liu, L. & Huang, L. Consumer acceptance of mobile payment across time: Antecedents and moderating role of diffusion stages. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 177, 1761–1776. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-08-2016-0312 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Abikari, M. Emotions, perceived risk and intentions to adopt emerging e-banking technology amongst educated young consumers. Int. J. Bank Mark. 42, 1036–1058. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-01-2023-0004 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Ejdys, J. Building technology trust in ICT application at a university. Int. J. Emerg. Mark. 13, 980–997. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJoEM-07-2017-0234 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Choung, H., David, P. & Ross, A. Trust in AI and its role in the acceptance of AI technologies. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 39, 1727–1739. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2050543 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Choung, H., David, P. & Ross, A. Trust in AI and its role in the acceptance of AI technologies. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 39, 1727–1739. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2050543 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Nunkoo, R. & Ramkissoon, H. Power, trust, social exchange and community support. Ann. Tour. Res. 39, 997–1023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.11.017 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Daud, A., Farida, N., & Razak, M. Impact of customer trust toward loyalty: the mediating role of perceived usefulness and satisfaction. Journal of Business and Retail Management Research, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.24052/JBRMR/V13IS02/ART-21 (2018).

  43. Cheung, K. Y. & Lai, C. Y. External auditors’ trust and perceived quality of interactions. Cogent Bus. Manag. 9(1), 2085366. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2085366 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Pavlou, P. A. Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 7, 101–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/10864415.2003.11044275 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Thiesse, F. RFID, privacy and the perception of risk: A strategic framework. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 16, 214–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2007.05.006 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Kenesei, Z. et al. TRU and perceived risk: How different manifestations affect the adoption of autonomous vehicles. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 164, 379–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/i.tra.2022.08.022 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Toros, E., Aşıksoy, G. & Sürücü, L. Refreshment students’ perceived usefulness and attitudes towards using technology: A moderated mediation model. Hum. Soc. Sci. Commun. 11, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02839-3 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Chatterjee, S., Rana, N. P., Dwivedi, Y. K. & Baabdullah, A. M. Understanding AI adoption in manufacturing and production firms using an integrated TAM-TOE model. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 170, 120880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120880 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Belda-Medina, J. & Calvo-Ferrer, J. R. Using chatbots as AI conversational partners in language learning. Appl. Sci. (Basel) 12, 8427. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12178427 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Nuryakin, N., Rakotoarizaka, N. L. P. & Musa, H. G. The effect of perceived usefulness and perceived easy to use on student satisfaction the mediating role of attitude to use online learning. APMBA (Asia Pacific Management and Business Application) 11(3), 323–336. https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.apmba.2023.011.03.5 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Trudel, R. Sustainable consumer behavior. Consum. Psychol. Rev. 2, 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/arcp.1045 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Zhang, C., Hu, M., Wu, W., Kamran, F. & Wang, X. Unpacking perceived risks and AI trust influences pre-service teachers’ AI acceptance: A structural equation modeling-based multi-group analysis. Educ. Inf. Technol. 30, 2645–2672. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12905-7 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Almaiah, M. A. et al. Investigating the role of perceived risk, perceived security and perceived trust on smart m-banking application using SEM. Sustainability 15(13), 9908. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15139908 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Mathew, A. O., Jha, A. N., Lingappa, A. K. & Sinha, P. ATTtowards drone food delivery services—Role of innovativeness, perceived risk, and green image. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 7, 144. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7020144 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Mohd Rahim, N. I., Iahad, N. A., Yusof, A. F. & Al-Sharafi, M. A. AI-Based chatbots adoption model for higher-education institutions: A hybrid PLS-SEM-Neural network modelling approach. Sustainability 14, 12726. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912726 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Rapp, A., Curti, L. & Boldi, A. The human side of human-chatbot interaction: A systematic literature review of ten years of research on text-based chatbots. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 151, 102630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102630 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Malefaki, S., Markatos, D. N., Filippatos, A. & Pantelakis, S. A comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods and normalization techniques in holistic sustainability assessment for engineering applications. Aerospace https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace12020100 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Yuan, D. et al. Analyzing of user attitudes toward intention to use social media for learning. SAGE Open 11(4), 21582440211060784. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211060784 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Cabero-Almenara, J., Llorente-Cejudo, C. & Martinez-Roig, R. The use of mixed, augmented and virtual reality in history of art teaching: A case study. Appl. Syst. Innov. 5(3), 44. https://doi.org/10.3390/asi5030044 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Majchrowska, A., Wiechetek, M., Pawlikowska, J., Drozd, M. & Pawlikowski, J. Social attitudes towards the pharmacist’s right to conscientious objection-research on the Polish population. Farm. Pol. https://doi.org/10.32383/farmpol/184117 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Hans, S., Marsella, S., Hirschmann, S. & Gurney, N. Security logs to ATT&CK insights: Leveraging LLMs for high-level threat understanding and cognitive trait inference. arXiv https://doi.org/10.54941/ahfe1007047 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Venkatesh,V., Morris,M.G., Davis,G.B. & Davis,F.D. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly. 425–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(98)00096–2 (2003).

  63. Yang, K. & Forney, J. C. The moderating role of consumer technology anxiety in mobile shopping adoption: Differential effects of facilitating conditions and SIs. J. Electron. Commer. Res. 14, 334 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Sharifi Fard, S., Alkelani, A. M. & Tamam, E. Habit as a moderator of the association of utilitarian motivation and hedonic motivation with purchase intention: Implications for social networking websites. Cogent Soc. Sci. 5, 1674068. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2019.1674068 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  65. Chang, H.-J., Eckman, M. & Yan, R.-N. Application of the stimulus-organism-response model to the retail environment: The role of HM in impulse buying behavior. The Int. review retail, distribution consumer research 21, 233–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593969.2011.578798 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  66. Ribeiro, M. A., Gursoy, D. & Chi, O. H. Customer acceptance of autonomous vehicles in travel and tourism. J. Travel Res. 46, 620–636. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287521993578 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Davis, F. D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Venkatesh, V. & Davis, F. D. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Manag. Sci. 46, 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  69. Fan, P. & Jiang, Q. Exploring the factors influencing continuance intention to use AI drawing tools: Insights from designers. Systems 12, 68. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12030068 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  70. Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M. & Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet... J. Mark. Theory Pract. 19, 139–152. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  71. Guner, H. & Acarturk, C. The use and acceptance of ICT by senior citizens: A comparison of technology acceptance model (TAM) for elderly and young adults. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 19(2), 311–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-018-0642-4 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  72. Henseler, J. & Sarstedt, M. Goodness-of-fit indices for partial least squares path modeling. Comput. Stat. 28, 565–580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00180-012-0317-1 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  73. Oyman, M., Bal, D. & Ozer, S. Extending the Technology Acceptance Model to explain how perceived augmented reality affects consumers’ perceptions. Comput. Hum. Behav. 128, 107127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.107127 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  74. Al-Ammary, J. H., Al-Sherooqi, A. K. & Al-Sherooqi, H. K. The acceptance of social networking as a learning tools at University of Bahrain. Int. J. Inf. Educ. Technol. 4, 208. https://doi.org/10.7763/ijiet.2014.v4.400 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  75. Trang, P. T. The influences of intrinsic motivation, transformational leadership, and digital skills on the intention to use digital technologies of Vietnamese banks’ employees via perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Edelweiss Applied Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1145/569905.569910 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  76. Ye, T. et al. Psychosocial factors affecting artificial intelligence adoption in health care in China: Cross-sectional study. J. Med. Internet Res. 21, e14316. https://doi.org/10.2196/14316 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  77. Wang, S. & Chen, C. Exploring designer trust in artificial intelligence-generated content: TAM/TPB model study. Appl. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14166902 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  78. Deng, Y. & Zhang, H. Configurational path to Chinese reading stickiness of digital library. ACM Trans. Asian Low Resour. Lang. Inf. Process. 20, 1–18 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  79. Zhu, Z., Ren, Y. & Shen, A. Exploring the acceptance of generative artificial intelligence-assisted learning and design creation among students in art design specialties: Based on the extended TAM model. Educ. Inf. Technol. 30, 18651–18678. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13551-3 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  80. Sánchez-Prieto, J. C. et al. Assessed by machines: Development of a TAM-based tool to measure ai-based assessment acceptance among students. Int. J. Interact. Multimed. Artif. Intell. 6, 80. https://doi.org/10.9781/ijimai.2020.11.009 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  81. Kwek, C. L. et al. Antecedents of INT social media for virtual events. J. Inf. & Knowl. Manag. 23, 2350063. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219649223500636 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  82. Li, Y., Siek, H. L. & Guo, J. An empirical study on the use behavior towards AI painting tools based on TAM3 model. Sci. Rep. 15, 40533. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-24405-w (2025).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Fashion Media, Jiangxi Institute of Fashion Technology, Nanchang City, Jiangxi Province, China

    Yang Li

  2. De Institute of Creative Arts and Design, UCSI University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

    Yang Li & Hwee Ling Siek

  3. Business School, Jiangxi Institute of Fashion Technology, Nanchang City, Jiangxi Province, China

    JinLing Guo

  4. UCSI Graduate Business School, UCSI University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

    JinLing Guo

Authors
  1. Yang Li
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hwee Ling Siek
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. JinLing Guo
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Must include all authors, identified by initials, for example: Y.L. conceived the experiment(s), Y.L. and H.L.S. conducted the experiment(s), Y.L. and L.J.G. analysed the results. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hwee Ling Siek.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1 (download XLSX )

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, Y., Siek, H.L. & Guo, J. Factors influencing user adoption of AI painting tools based on the AIDUA model. Sci Rep (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-48130-0

Download citation

  • Received: 24 June 2025

  • Accepted: 06 April 2026

  • Published: 10 April 2026

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-48130-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Download PDF

Advertisement

Explore content

  • Research articles
  • News & Comment
  • Collections
  • Subjects
  • Follow us on Facebook
  • Follow us on X
  • Sign up for alerts
  • RSS feed

About the journal

  • About Scientific Reports
  • Contact
  • Journal policies
  • Guide to referees
  • Calls for Papers
  • Editor's Choice
  • Journal highlights
  • Open Access Fees and Funding

Publish with us

  • For authors
  • Language editing services
  • Open access funding
  • Submit manuscript

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

  • Explore articles by subject
  • Find a job
  • Guide to authors
  • Editorial policies

Scientific Reports (Sci Rep)

ISSN 2045-2322 (online)

nature.com footer links

About Nature Portfolio

  • About us
  • Press releases
  • Press office
  • Contact us

Discover content

  • Journals A-Z
  • Articles by subject
  • protocols.io
  • Nature Index

Publishing policies

  • Nature portfolio policies
  • Open access

Author & Researcher services

  • Reprints & permissions
  • Research data
  • Language editing
  • Scientific editing
  • Nature Masterclasses
  • Research Solutions

Libraries & institutions

  • Librarian service & tools
  • Librarian portal
  • Open research
  • Recommend to library

Advertising & partnerships

  • Advertising
  • Partnerships & Services
  • Media kits
  • Branded content

Professional development

  • Nature Awards
  • Nature Careers
  • Nature Conferences

Regional websites

  • Nature Africa
  • Nature China
  • Nature India
  • Nature Japan
  • Nature Middle East
  • Privacy Policy
  • Use of cookies
  • Legal notice
  • Accessibility statement
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Your US state privacy rights
Springer Nature

© 2026 Springer Nature Limited

Nature Briefing AI and Robotics

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: AI and Robotics newsletter — what matters in AI and robotics research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: AI and Robotics