Cited by 319AI in Service InteractionsTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourSocial Robot Interaction and HRI

Is ChatGPT scary good? How user motivations affect creepiness and trust in generative artificial intelligence

Open access
Hyun Baek, Tae, Kim, Minseong·2023·Telematics and Informatics

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.tele.2023.102030

Cites

17 of 17 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?

  • There is a relative lack of knowledge as to why people use generative conversational AI.

    “While these studies indicate that generative conversational AI can have significant implications on personal and working life, there is a relative lack of knowledge as to why people use this technology.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hyun Baek, T., & Kim, M.
Affiliations
Louisiana State University (US)
Corresponding author
Kim, Minseong
Venue
Telematics and Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-09
Volume
83
Pages
102030
ISSN
0736-5853 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4385484115
Cited by
319
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 91 · 2025: 127 · 2024: 97 · 2023: 4
FWCI
30.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Telematics and Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
Keywords
ChatGPT, generative AI, user motivation, creepiness, trust in AI, continuance intention, personalization, task efficiency, social interaction, AI chatbots, user interface design

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