CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 138Technology Adoption and User BehaviourHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Why do users trust algorithms? A review and conceptualization of initial trust and trust over time

Open access
Cabiddu, Francesca, Moi, Ludovica, Patriotta, Gerardo, Allen, David G.·2022·European Management Journal
DOI 10.1016/j.emj.2022.06.001
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.emj.2022.06.001

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A setting in which AI is embedded in the service relationship may provide limited, or different, signals on which both human-based trust and system-based trust can be established.

    “As Cabiddu et al. (2022) observe, such a setting may provide limited, or different, signals on which both human-based trust and system-based trust can be established.”

    From The AI of the Beholder: Intra‐Professional Sensemaking of an Epistemic Technology (2025) · cites this paper as Cabiddu et al. (2022)

    The Introduction and §2 distinguish human-like and system-like bases for trust in AI and describe social cues that can shape perceptions of technology. The copy does not say that AI embedded in a service relationship provides limited or different signals for establishing both kinds of trust; that setting-specific point is not supported. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 121 · Cited by 138

Research works printed but not linked: 88

  1. Alexander, V., Blinder, C., & Zak, P. J. (2018). Why trust an algorithm? Performance, cognition, and neurophysiology. Computers in Human Behavior, 89 , 279-288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.026. · DOI
  2. Bazeley, P., & Jackson, K. (2013). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo . Sage Publications Limited. Beer, D. (2017). The social power of algorithms. Information. Communication & Society, 20 (1), 113. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1216147 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Belém, F. M., Silva, R. M., de Andrade, C. M., Person, G., Mingote, F., Ballet, R., Alponti, H., de Oliveira, H. P., Almeida, J. M., & Gonçalves, M. A. (2020). 'Fixing the curse of the bad product descriptions'-Search-boosted tag recommendation for E-commerce products. Information Processing & Management , 57 (5), 102289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2020.102289. · DOI
  4. Bhattacherjee, A., & Lin, C. P. (2014). A Unified Model of IT Continuance: Three Complementary Perspectives and Crossover Effects. European Journal of Information Systems , 24 (4), 364-373. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2013.36. · DOI · Paper page
  5. Bhattacherjee, A., & Premkumar, G. (2004). Understanding changes in belief and attitude toward information technology usage: A theoretical model and longitudinal test. MIS Quarterly , 28 (2), 229-254. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148634. · DOI · Paper page
  6. Brkan, M. (2019). Do algorithms rule the world? Algorithmic decision-making and data protection in the framework of the GDPR and beyond. International journal of law and information technology , 27 , 91-121. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eay017. · DOI
  7. Burton, J. W., Stein, M.-K., & Jensen, T. B. (2020). A systematic review of algorithm aversion in augmented decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making , 33 (2), 220- 239. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2155. · DOI · Paper page
  8. Calabrò, A., Vecchiarini, M., Gast, J., Campopiano, G., De Massis, A., & Kraus, S. (2019). Innovation in family firms: A systematic literature review and guidance for future research. International journal of management reviews, 21 (3), 317-355. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12192. · DOI
  9. Castelo, N., Maarten W.B., & Donald R. L. (2019). Task-Dependent Algorithm Aversion. Journal of Marketing Research , 56 (5), 809-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243719851788. · DOI · Paper page
  10. Cho, M.H., Bonn, M.A., & Li, J. (2019). Differences in perceptions about food delivery apps between single-person and multi-person households. International Journal of Hospitality Management , 77 , 108-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.06.019. · DOI
  11. Curchod, C., Patriotta, G., Cohen, L., & Neysen, N. (2020). Working for an algorithm: Power asymmetries and agency in online work settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65 (3), 644676. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839219867024. · DOI · Paper page
  12. Dabholkar, P.A., & Sheng, X. (2012). Consumer participation in using online recommendation agents: effects on satisfaction, trust, and purchase intentions. Service Industries Journal , 32 (9), 1433-1449. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2011.624596. · DOI · Paper page
  13. Daugherty, P.R., Wilson, H.J. & Chowdhury, R. (2019). 'Using Artificial Intelligence to Promote Diversity'. MIT Sloan Management Review, 60 (2), 59-63.
  14. Davenport, T., Guha, A., Grewal, D., & Bressgott, T. (2020). How artificial intelligence will change the future of marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 48 , 24-42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-019-00696-0. · DOI · Paper page
  15. Davis, M.S. (1971). That's Interesting! Toward a Phenomenology of Sociology and a Sociology of Phenomenology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1 (4), 309-344. https://doi.org/10.1177/004839317100100211. · DOI · Paper page
  16. De Baets, S., & Harvey, N. (2020). Using judgment to select and adjust forecasts from statistical models. European Journal of Operational Research, 284 (3), 882-895 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2020.01.028. · DOI
  17. De Cicco, R., Silva, S. C., & Alparone, F. R. (2020). Millennials' attitude toward chatbots: An experimental study in a social relationship perspective. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management , 48 (11), 1213-1233. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-12-2019-0406. · DOI
  18. Diakopoulos, N. (2016). Accountability in algorithmic decision making. Communications of the ACM , 59 (2), 56-62. https://doi.org/10.1145/2844110. · DOI · Paper page
  19. Ding, S., Yue, Z., Yang, S., Niu, F., & Zhang, Y. (2019). A Novel Trust Model based Overlapping Community Detection Algorithm for Social Networks. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 32 (11), 2101-2114. https://10.1109/TKDE.2019.2914201. · DOI
  20. Efendić, E., Van de Calseyde, P. P., & Evans, A. M. (2020). Slow response times undermine trust in algorithmic (but not human) predictions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 157 , 103-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.01.008. · DOI
  21. Elsbach, K. and van Knippenberg, D. (2020). 'Creating high-impact literature reviews: An argument for integrative reviews'. Journal of Management Studies , 57, 1277-1289. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12581. · DOI
  22. Fraile, F., Tagawa, T., Poler, R., & Ortiz, A. (2018). Trustworthy industrial IoT gateways for interoperability platforms and ecosystems. IEEE Internet Things Journal , 5 (6), 4506-4514. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2018.2832041. · DOI
  23. Friedman, B., Khan, P. H., Jr., & Howe, D. C. (2000). Trust online. Communications of the ACM, 43 (12), 34-40. https://doi.org/10.1145/355112.355120. · DOI
  24. Furrer, O., Thomas, H., & Goussevskaia, A. (2008). The structure and evolution of the strategic management field: A content analysis of 26 years of strategic management research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10 (1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00217.x. · DOI
  25. Gao, L., & Waechter, K. (2017). Examining the role of initial trust in user adoption of mobile payment services: an empirical investigation. Information Systems Frontiers , 19 , 525-548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-015-9611-0. · DOI
  26. Gefen, D., Benbasat, I., & Pavlou, P. A. 2008. A research agenda for trust in online environments. Journal of Management Information Systems , 24 , 275-286. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS07421222240411. · DOI
  27. Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances . In R. E. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting and knowing, Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  28. He, J., Wang, X., Vandenbosch, M. B., & Nault, B. R. (2020). Revealed preference in online reviews: Purchase verification in the tablet market. Decision Support Systems , 132, 113281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2020.113281. · DOI
  29. Helbing, D., Frey, B. S., Gigerenzer, G., et al. (2019). Will Democracy Survive Big Data and Artificial Intelligence?, in Helbing D. (ed.) Towards Digital Enlightenment. Essays on the Dark and Light Sides of the Digital Revolution , pp. 73-98. Cham: Springer.
  30. Ho, C.-C., & MacDorman, K.F. (2010). Revisiting the uncanny valley theory: Developing and validating an alternative to the Godspeed indices. Computers in Human Behavior , 26(6), 150818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.015. · DOI
  31. Hoff, K. A., & Bashir, M. (2015). Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Human Factors , 57 , 407-434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720814547570. · DOI · Paper page
  32. Jones, G.R., & George, J.M. (1998). The experience and evolution of trust: implications for cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 23 (3), 531-546. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.926625. · DOI · Paper page
  33. Jøsang, A., Ismail, R., & Boyd, C. (2007). A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision. Decision Support Systems, 43 (2), 618 -644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2005.05.019. · DOI · Paper page
  34. Joseph, J., & Gaba, V. (2020). Organizational structure, information processing, and decisionmaking: a retrospective and road map for research. Academy of Management Annals, 14 (1), 267302. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2017.0103. · DOI
  35. Kaplan, A., & Haenlein, M. (2020). Rulers of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of artificial intelligence. Business Horizons, 63 (1), 37-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2019.09.003. · DOI · Paper page
  36. Karahanna, E., Straub, D.W., & Chervany, N.L. (1999). Information technology adoption across time: a cross-sectional comparison of preadoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS Quarterly, 23 (2), 183-213. https://doi.org/10.2307/249751. · DOI
  37. Kim, D.J., Ferrin, D.L., & Rao, H.R. (2009). Trust and satisfaction, two stepping stones for successful e-commerce relationships: A longitudinal exploration. Information Systems Research , 20 (2), 237257. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1080.0188. · DOI · Paper page
  38. Komiak, S.Y.X., Wang, W., & Benbasat, I. (2005). Trust building in virtual salespersons versus in human salespersons: Similarities and differences. e-Service Journal, 3 (3), 49-63. https://doi.org/10.2979/esj.2004.3.3.49. · DOI
  39. Kordzadeh, N., & Ghasemaghaei, M. (2021). Algorithmic bias: review, synthesis, and future research directions. European Journal of Information Systems , 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2021.1927212. · DOI · Paper page
  40. Langer, M., König, C. J., & Busch, V. (2020). Changing the means of managerial work: Effects of automated decision support systems on personnel selection tasks. Journal of Business and Psychology , 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-020-09711-6. · DOI
  41. Lankton, N. K. & McKnight, H. D. (2012). Examining two expectation disconfirmation theory models: assimilation and asymmetry effects. Journal of the Association for Information Systems , 13 , 88-115. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00285. · DOI
  42. Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human factors, 46 (1), 50-80. https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.1.50\_30392. · DOI · Paper page
  43. Leonardi, P., & Contractor, N. (2018). Better people analytics. Harvard Business Review, 96 (6), 7081.
  44. Lin, C. S., Wu, S. & Tsai, R. J. (2005). Integrating perceived playfulness into expectation confirmation model for web portal context. Information & Management , 42 (5), 683-693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2004.04.003. · DOI
  45. Lindebaum, D., Vesa, M., & Den Hond, F. (2020). Insights from 'the machine stops' to better understand rational assumptions in algorithmic decision making and its implications for organizations. Academy of Management Review, 45 (1), 247-263. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0181. · DOI · Paper page
  46. Majchrzak, A., Faraj, S., Kane, G. C., & Azad, B. (2013). The contradictory influence of social media affordances on online communal knowledge sharing. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19 (1), 38-55. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12030. · DOI
  47. Marchand, A., & Marx, P. (2020). Automated Product Recommendations with Preference-Based Explanations. Journal of Retailing , 96 , 328-343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2020.01.001. · DOI · Paper page
  48. Martin, K. (2019a). Ethical Implications and Accountability of Algorithms. Journal of Business Ethics , 160 , 835-850. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3921-3. · DOI · Paper page
  49. Martin, K. (2019b). Designing ethical algorithms. MIS Quarterly Executive , 18 (2), 129-142. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3056692. · DOI · Paper page
  50. Matook, S., Brown, S.A., & Rolf, J. (2015). Forming an intention to act on recommendations given via online social networks. European Journal of Information Systems , 24 (1), 76-92. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2013.28. · DOI
  51. McKnight D.H., Liu P., & Pentland B.T. (2020). Trust Change in Information Technology Products. Journal of Management Information Systems, 37 (4), 1015-1046. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2020.1831772. · DOI
  52. McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002). Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: An integrative typology. Information systems research, 13 (3), 334-359. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.13.3.334.81. · DOI · Paper page
  53. McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. L. (1998). Initial Trust Formation in New Organizational Relationships. Academy of Management Review , 23 , 473-490. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.926622. · DOI · Paper page
  54. Michelman, P. (2017). When People Don't Trust Algorithms. MIT Sloan Management Review , 59.
  55. Montazemi, A. R. (1991). The impact of experience on the design of user interface. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies , 34 , 731-749. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7373(91)90022-Y. · DOI
  56. Mori, M. (1970). Bukimi no tani (the uncanny valley). Energy, 7 (4), 33-35.
  57. Nabi, G., Liñán, F., Fayolle, A., Krueger, N., & Walmsley, A. (2017). The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher education: A systematic review and research agenda. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16 (2), 277-299. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0026. · DOI · Paper page
  58. Nass, C., Steuer, J. S., & Tauber, E. (1994). Computers are social actors . In Proceedings of the CHI Conference (pp. 72-77). Boston, MA: Springer-Verlag.
  59. Nowak, K. L., & Rauh, C. (2005). The influence of the avatar on online perceptions of anthropomorphism, androgyny, credibility, homophily, and attraction. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication , 11 , 153-178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.10836101.2006.tb00308.x. · DOI
  60. OECD (2020). Using artificial intelligence to help combat COVID-19 . Retrieved from: https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/view/?ref=130\_130771-3jtyra9uoh&title=Using-artificialintelligence-to-help-combat-COVID-19. Accessed March 20, 2021. https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/view/?ref=130_130771-3jtyra9uoh&title=Using-artificial-intelligence-to-help-combat-COVID-19
  61. Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2014). What happens when evaluation goes online? Exploring apparatuses of valuation in the travel sector. Organization Science, 25 (3), 868-891. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0877. · DOI
  62. Patriotta, G. (2020). Writing impactful review articles. Journal of Management Studies, 57 , 6, 12721276. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12608. · DOI
  63. Pedeliento, G., Andreini, D., Bergamaschi, M., & Klobas, J.E. (2017). Trust, information asymmetry and professional service online referral agents. Journal of Service Theory and Practice , 27 (6), 1081-1104. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-10-2016-0185. · DOI
  64. Rashman, L., Withers, E., & Hartley, J. (2009). Organizational learning and knowledge in public service organizations: A systematic review of the literature. International journal of management reviews, 11 (4), 463-494. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00257.x. · DOI
  65. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  66. Robert, L. P., Pierce, C., Marquis, E., Kim, S., Alahmad, R. (2020). Designing Fair AI for Managing Employees in Organizations: A Review, Critique, and Design Agenda, Human -Computer Interaction , 35(5-6), 545-575. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2020.1735391. · DOI · Paper page
  67. Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Person- ality, 35 , 651-665. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1967.tb01454.x. · DOI · Paper page
  68. Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S., et al. (1998). Not so Different after All: A Cross-Discipline View of Trust. Academy of Management Review , 23 , 393-404. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.926617. · DOI · Paper page
  69. Saggese, S., Sarto, F., & Cuccurullo, C. (2016). Evolution of the debate on control enhancing mechanisms: A systematic review and bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18 (4), 417-439. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12072. · DOI
  70. Shin, D. (2021). The effects of explainability and causability on perception, trust, and acceptance: Implications for explainable AI International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 146 , 102551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102551. · DOI · Paper page
  71. Shin, D., & Park, Y. J. (2019). Role of fairness, accountability, and transparency in algorithmic affordance. Computers in Human Behavior , 98, 277-284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.04.019. · DOI · Paper page
  72. Shin, D., Zhong, B., & Biocca, F. A. (2020). Beyond user experience: What constitutes algorithmic experiences? International Journal of Information Management, 52 , 102061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.102061. · DOI
  73. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications . London, UK: John Wiley.
  74. Shrestha, Y.R., Ben-Menahem, S.M., & von Krogh, G. (2019). Organizational decision-making structures in the age of artificial intelligence. California Management Review, 61 (4), 66-83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125619862257. · DOI · Paper page
  75. Susskind, R., & Susskind, D. (2015). The future of professions. How technology will transform the work of human experts . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  76. Tahmasbi, H., Jalali, M., & Shakeri, H. (2021). TSCMF: Temporal and social collective matrix factorization model for recommender systems. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems , 56 , 169187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10844-020-00613-w. · DOI
  77. Talwar, S., Dhir, A., Khalil, A., Mohan, G., & Islam, A. N. (2020). Point of adoption and beyond. Initial trust and mobile-payment continuation intention. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services , 55 , 102086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102086. · DOI · Paper page
  78. Teo, T.S.H., Srivastava, S.C., & Jiang, L. (2009). Trust and electronic government success: an empirical study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 25 , 103-137. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222250303. · DOI
  79. Thiebes, S., Lins, S., & Sunyaev, A. (2021). Trustworthy artificial intelligence. Electronic Markets, 31 (2), 447-464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-020-00441-4. · DOI · Paper page
  80. Vance, A., Elie-Dit-Cosaque, C., & Straub, D.W. (2008). Examining Trust in Information Technology Artifacts: The Effects of System Quality and Culture. Journal of Management Information Systems , 24 , 73-100. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240403. · DOI · Paper page
  81. Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. G. (2000). Why don't men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS quarterly , 24 (1), 115139. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250981. · DOI
  82. Wang, W. Q., & Benbasat, I. (2007). Recommendation Agents for Electronic Commerce: Effects of Explanation Facilities on Trusting Beliefs. Journal of Management Information Systems , 23 , 217-246. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222230410. · DOI
  83. Wang, W., & Benbasat, I. (2005). Trust in and adoption of online recommendation agents. Journal of the Association for Information Systems , 6 (3), 72-101. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00065. · DOI
  84. Wang, X., Lin, X., & Liu, Z. (2019). Understanding consumers' post-adoption behavior in sharing economy services. Journal of Computer Information Systems , 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2019.1631132. · DOI
  85. Whitecotton, S. M. (1996). The effects of experience and confidence on decision aid reliance: A causal model. Behavioral Research in Accounting , 8 , 194-216. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0042. · DOI
  86. Wolker, A. & Powell, TE. (2018). Algorithms in the Newsroom? News Readers' Perceived Credibility and Selection of Automated Journalism.' Journalism , 22 (1), 86-103. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884918757072. · DOI
  87. Xiao, B., & Benbasat, I. (2007). E-commerce product recommendation agents: Use, characteristics, and impact. MIS quarterly , 31 (1), 137-209. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148784. · DOI · Paper page
  88. Yu, S. J. (2012). The dynamic competitive recommendation algorithm in social network services. Information Sciences , 187 , 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2011.10.020. · DOI

Authors
Cabiddu, F., Moi, L., Patriotta, G., & Allen, D. G.
Affiliations
  • University of Cagliari (IT)
  • University of Bath (GB)
  • Texas Christian University (US)
Corresponding author
Cabiddu, Francesca
ORCID
Venue
European Management Journal
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-10
Volume
40
Issue
5
Pages
685-706
ISSN
0263-2373 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.emj.2022.06.001
OpenAlex
W4283020931
Cited by
138
References
121
Citations by year
2026: 53 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 4
FWCI
17.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • European Management Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • UNICA IRIS Institutional Research Information System (University of Cagliari) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Pure (University of Bath) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca (F29E18000040001)
  • Università degli Studi di Cagliari
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
trust in algorithms, initial trust, trust formation, algorithmic decision-making, user perceptions of AI, determinants of trust

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review