CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 27Human-Automation Interaction and SafetyEthics and Social Impacts of AITechnology Adoption and User Behaviour

Sensemaking with AI: how trust influences human–AI collaboration in health and creative industries

Open access
Daly, Sarah J., Hearn, Greg, Papageorgiou, Kyriaki·2025·Social Sciences & Humanities Open
DOI 10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101346
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study investigates how trust influences human-AI collaboration within the health and creative sectors, where attitudes toward AI vary widely due to field-specific challenges and expectations. By comparing perspectives from 285 professionals, including artists and doctors, and through persona narratives , we explore how trust in AI can enhance human potential and encourage adoption. Findings reveal that trust hinges on transparency, contextual understanding, human agency during collaboration, and the user's initial perception of AI. This study contributes to understanding trust as a cornerstone of successful human-AI collaboration, proposing ways to foster trusted AI adoption across diverse professional landscapes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101346

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • In studies on human-AI co-creation or comparisons between two co-creation types, the need to belong has rarely been directly investigated or has been treated only as a mediating variable.

    “However, in studies on human–AI co-creation or comparisons between two co-creation types, while many have examined social motivational factors such as trust (Daly et al., 2025), empathy (Zhu et al., 2025; Qian and Wan, 2025), reliance (Siemon et al., 2025) and commitment feeling (Wang et al., 2025), the need to belong, although a fundamental social motivation, has rarely been directly investigated”

    From From humans to AI: understanding why AI is perceived as the preferred co-creation partner (2025) · cites this paper as Daly et al., 2025

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Daly, S. J., Hearn, G., & Papageorgiou, K.
Affiliations
  • Queensland University of Technology (AU)
  • Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
Corresponding author
Daly, Sarah J.
ORCID
Venue
Social Sciences & Humanities Open
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2025
Volume
11
Pages
101346
ISSN
2590-2911 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ssaho.2025.101346
OpenAlex
W4407732943
Semantic Scholar
a956f3166975b967f20153f0834798f91a2f8031
Cited by
27
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 11
FWCI
29.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Social Sciences & Humanities Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
Keywords
trust in AI, human-AI collaboration, sensemaking, healthcare workers, creative industries, artists, artificial intelligence adoption, transparency, human agency, perceptions of AI

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