Investigating the Role of Cultural Values in Adopting Large Language Models for Software Engineering
Abstract
As a socio-technical activity, software development involves the close interconnection of people and technology. The integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into this process exemplifies the socio-technical nature of software development. Although LLMs influence the development process, software development remains fundamentally human-centric, necessitating an investigation of the human factors in this adoption. Thus, with this study we explore the factors influencing the adoption of LLMs in software development, focusing on the role of professionals’ cultural values. Guided by the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT2) and Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, we hypothesized that cultural values moderate the relationships within the UTAUT2 framework. Using Partial Least Squares-Structural Equation Modelling and data from 188 software engineers, we found that habit and performance expectancy are the primary drivers of LLM adoption, while cultural values do not significantly moderate this process. These findings suggest that, by highlighting how LLMs can boost performance and efficiency, organizations can encourage their use, no matter the cultural differences. Practical steps include offering training programs to demonstrate LLM benefits, creating a supportive environment for regular use, and continuously tracking and sharing performance improvements from using LLMs.
Study specs
- Institution
- University of Salerno,Aalborg University
- Year
- 2025
- Human Data Platform
- Prolific
- Source
- View Source Google Scholar
Peer Review & Critical Discussion
Potential Selection Bias in 2023 Cohort
The participant pool shows a concerning overrepresentation of users from high-income demographics. Looking at Table 3, we can see that 78% of respondents had annual incomes above $75k, which significantly limits the generalizability of these findings to broader populations.
Non-naive Participants Issue
I've noticed a methodological concern regarding participant naivety. Given that Prolific users often complete multiple studies, there's a real risk that participants had prior exposure to similar experimental paradigms, which could confound the results.
RLHF Applicability to This Study Design
The implications for RLHF training pipelines are understated. If we accept the authors' conclusions about preference stability, this has direct consequences for how we should structure reward model training. The temporal decay effect described in Section 4.2 is particularly relevant.
Verify your expertise to join discussion
Create an account and verify your credentials to participate in peer discussions.