The DOI matches its Crossref record; 63 of the 63 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 33 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Trust in AI and Its Role in the Acceptance of AI Technologies
Open accessAbstract
As AI-enhanced technologies become common in a variety of domains, there is an increasing need to define and examine the trust that users have in such technologies. Given the progress in the development of AI, a correspondingly sophisticated understanding of trust in the technology is required. This paper addresses this need by explaining the role of trust in the intention to use AI technologies. Study 1 examined the role of trust in the use of AI voice assistants based on survey responses from college students. A path analysis confirmed that trust had a significant effect the on intention to use AI, which operated through perceived usefulness and participants’ attitude toward voice assistants. In Study 2, using data from a representative sample of the U.S. population, different dimensions of trust were examined using exploratory factor analysis, which yielded two dimensions: human-like trust and functionality trust. The results of the path analyses from Study 1 were replicated in Study 2, confirming the indirect effect of trust and the effects of perceived usefulness, ease of use, and attitude on intention to use. Further, both dimensions of trust shared a similar pattern of effects within the model, with functionality-related trust exhibiting a greater total impact on usage intention than human-like trust. Overall, the role of trust in the acceptance of AI technologies was significant across both studies. This research contributes to the advancement and application of the TAM in AI-related applications and offers a multidimensional measure of trust that can be utilized in the future study of trustworthy AI.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Two studies extend the technology acceptance model (TAM) by adding trust in AI, finding that trust indirectly affects intention to use AI through perceived usefulness and attitude. Study 2 identifies two trust dimensions—human-like trust and functionality trust—with functionality trust showing a greater total impact on usage intention than human-like trust.
Key findings
- In Study 1 (N = 312 college students), the path model explained 52% of variance in usage intention (R² = .52); attitude was the strongest direct predictor of behavioral intention (β = .62, p < .001), and trust had a significant indirect effect through perceived usefulness and attitude. Total effects on usage intention were perceived ease of use β = .63, perceived usefulness β = .46, and trust β = .32 (all p < .001).
- In Study 2 (N = 640 representative U.S. adults), exploratory factor analysis yielded two trust dimensions: human-like trust in AI (six items) and functionality trust in AI (five items). The TAM results replicated: attitude predicted intention (β = .65, p < .001), perceived ease of use had total effects of β = .71 in both models, and perceived usefulness had total effects of β = .57 and β = .56 (all p < .001).
- Both trust dimensions had significant indirect effects on intention to use smart technologies, but functionality-related trust had a greater total impact on usage intention (β = .42, p < .001) than human-like trust (β = .36, p < .001).
Methods
- Study 1: online survey conducted October–December 2020 with 312 undergraduate students from a large Midwest university (56% female; ages 18–29, median 21; 96% had used at least one AI voice assistant). Path analysis was conducted in R using lavaan with maximum likelihood estimation and bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals (k = 1,000).
- Study 2: online survey conducted April 2021 using a national Qualtrics panel with quota sampling for gender, age, and race based on U.S. Census data; 640 respondents participated (50.1% female, mean age = 46.43, SD = 17.83; 65.9% White, 12% Black or African American, 12% Hispanic, 5.9% Asian, 4.4% other). Trust items were factor analyzed, yielding two dimensions, and two separate path models tested human-like trust and functionality trust using the same analytic approach as Study 1.
- Measures: perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, attitude, and behavioral intention were adapted from TAM scales; Study 1 trust in AI voice assistants used four created items; Study 2 trust items were constructed around benevolence/helpfulness, integrity/reliability, and competence/functionality.
Limitations
- Stated in the paper: the studies focused on consumer AI products (voice assistants and smart technologies) associated with lower risk, so findings may not generalize to high-stakes AI such as self-driving cars or healthcare AI; trust is dynamic and may differ across stages such as initial versus ongoing trust; the path models are correlational and cannot guarantee causal effects; and online panel respondents may not be truly representative because they have computer and internet access, skewing toward higher technology acceptance.
- Evident from the text: Study 1 used a convenience sample of college students, limiting generalizability; both studies relied on cross-sectional self-report survey data, so causal direction among trust, perceived usefulness, attitude, and intention cannot be established from these data alone.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
94 Own result · 27 Not checked yet · 18 Own interpretation · 15 Own method · 7 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The perceived usefulness of an AI voice assistant also positively influenced users' attitude toward it ( 𝛽 = .42, p < .001)”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The validated model presents a high explanatory power, with 52% of variance explained ( R 2 = .52).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the path model demonstrated a good fit with the data: 𝜒 2 (1) = .32, p = .58; RMSEA = .00 [.00, .12]; SRMR = .01; CFI = 1.00; TLI = 1.01.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“trust perception ( 𝛽 = .39, p < .001)”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, trust positively predicted perceived usefulness.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In Study 2, using data from a representative sample of the U.S. population, different dimensions of trust were examined using exploratory factor analysis, which yielded two dimensions: human-like trust and functionality trust.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although trust does not directly affect usage intention, the construct appears to be pivotal in improving user perception of the utility of voice assistants and in building positive attitudes toward them.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“willingness to use it ( 𝛽 = .20, p < .01)”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A path analysis confirmed that trust had a significant effect on the intention to use AI, which operated through perceived usefulness and participants' attitude toward voice assistants.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“attitude ( 𝛽 = .26, p < .001)”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 38
- Probably not a substantial claim. 39
- The quote only partly states this claim. 3
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All other measures of fit (CFI above .95, SRMR below .05, and RMSEA below .08) showed that the models were adequate in reproducing covariances among the variables.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The models fit the data well: human trust in AI, 𝜒 2 (1) = 4.92, p = .03; RMSEA = .08 [.02, .15]; SRMR = .01; CFI = 1.00; TLI = .98; technology-related trust in AI, 𝜒 2 (1) = 4.85, p = .03 RMSEA = .08 [.02, .15]; SRMR = .01; CFI = 1.00; TLI = .98.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results of the path analyses from Study 1 were replicated in Study 2, confirming the indirect effect of trust and the effects of perceived usefulness, ease of use, and attitude on intention to use.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The values in Table 2 indicate that the constructs are moderately correlated.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Trust also predicted positive attitudes, which in turn influenced usage intention (H4b).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“perceived ease of use had the largest total effect on usage intention ( 𝛽 = .63; p < .001), followed by perceived usefulness ( 𝛽 = .46; p < .001) and trust perception ( 𝛽 = .32; p < .001).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, we found that trust can influence and is influenced by the factors included in the TAM.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Trust was associated with increased perceived usefulness, which in turn increased usage intention (H4a).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Items from the three constructs were factor analyzed, which yielded a two-factor structure, based on a principal components exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with an Oblimin rotation. The items measuring benevolence and integrity were grouped together, and competence was treated as another dimension.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and attitude were positive predictors of usage intention.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results of indirect effects revealed that all mediated paths depicted were statistically significant, including the hypothesized (H5) paths (see Table 3).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further, both dimensions of trust shared a similar pattern of effects within the model, with functionality-related trust exhibiting a greater total impact on usage intention than human-like trust.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, trust predicted perceived usefulness, which in turn increased positive attitudes and usage intention (H4c).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In both path models, participants' intention to use a smart technology was predicated on its perceived ease of use (total effect 𝛽 = .71; p < .001; 𝛽 = .71; p < .001) and perceived usefulness (total effect 𝛽 = .57; p < .001; 𝛽 = .56; p < .001).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“both trust dimensions ( 𝛽 = .56, p < .001; 𝛽 = .51, p < .001)”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, the results indicate that the two dimensions of trust in AI-the human-like trust dimension and the functionality dimension -significantly predict perceived usefulness and positive attitude toward smart technology, which in turn, predict greater usage intention.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The two types of trust were associated with perceived usefulness, which predicted greater usage intention (H4a).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, trust dimensions predicted perceived usefulness, which in turn increased positive attitudes and usage intention (H4c).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Trust also predicted positive attitudes, which in turn affected usage intention (H4b).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In Study 1 and Study 2, we found that perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness were essential determinants for the use of AI technologies, although perceived ease of use had a consistently greater impact on the acceptance of these technologies.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This dimension was a significant predictor of the acceptance of technology, as was the functionality dimension.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“both the human-like and the functionality dimensions of trust had statistically significant indirect effects on the intention to use AI smart technologies, thus supporting H5.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Factor 1: Human-like trust in AI”
- Also stated in: § Tables and Figures · plain
“Factor 2: Functionality trust in AI”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § Tables and Figures · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This finding suggests that trust in technology is a dynamic concept that is still evolving and variable based on the context and the characteristics of the trusted agent.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Also, current voice assistants are designed to be more human-like than previous attempts, and many individuals are communicating with voice assistants as part of their everyday life in the same way they interact with other humans (Sundar et al., 2017), making trust more relevant.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sundar et al., 2017
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unlike traditional technologies that rely on user input and the execution of rules programmed by a human, AI implies certain levels of autonomy.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Trust is vital to understanding interpersonal interaction, as it contributes to perceived reliability and integrity.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the current study, building on previous work regarding trust, we focus on the two main dimensions of trust in AI: 1) human-like trust in AI, and 2) functionality trust in AI.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“trust has been examined as a key factor in the acceptance of emerging technologies (K. Wu et al., 2011).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites K. Wu et al., 2011
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The finding is in line with studies that have tested the impact of these constructs on the adoption of various forms of technology (e.g., Beldad & Hegner, 2018; Choi & Ji, 2015).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Beldad & Hegner, 2018
- Not checked yetcites Choi & Ji, 2015
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The latter dimension pertains to the competency and expertise of the technological features.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“The constructs 'perceived ease of use' and 'perceived usefulness' were measured with five items, each adapted from the original TAM scale (Davis, 1989).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Davis, 1989
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The anthropomorphic nature of voice assistants could make trust more critical.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To ensure the representativeness of participants, we adopted a quota sampling method that set quotas for gender, age, and race based on U.S. Census data.”
plainn = 640- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This finding suggests that to motivate individuals to adopt or continue to use an AI voice assistant, they should find the technology easy to use and useful.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Past studies have applied interpersonal trust to human technology relationships (Calhoun et al., 2019), especially when the technology has human-like characteristics (Gillath et al., 2021).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Calhoun et al., 2019
- Not checked yetcites Gillath et al., 2021
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“For human-like trust in AI, trust is in the agent, not in the specific actions and operations of the agent (J. D. Lee & See, 2004).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites J. D. Lee & See, 2004
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Ninety-six percent of participants reported that they had used at least one type of AI voice assistant.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Similar to trust in people and trust in technology, trust in automation is summarized in three categories: 1) performance, 2) process, and 3) purpose.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lee and See (2004)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Voice assistants are designed to be more human-like (McLean & Osei-Frimpong, 2019), with their voice feature encouraging users to adopt the same social responses that they habitually use in their interpersonal relationships (Reeves & Nass, 1996).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites McLean & Osei-Frimpong, 2019
- Not checked yetcites Reeves & Nass, 1996
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although trust does not directly affect usage intention, the construct appears to be pivotal in improving user perception of the utility of voice assistants and in building positive attitudes toward them.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Behavioral intention to use or continue to use an AI voice assistant was measured with three items from the TAM 2 scale (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Venkatesh & Davis, 2000
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The former dimension pertains to the social and cultural values of the algorithms and the values and ethics that undergird the design of the AI technology.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“We consider that in the context of AI, both trust in people and trust in technology are relevant, since AI technologies are often depicted as being capable of human qualities, including reasoning and motivations, which can induce high expectations and initial trust (Glikson & Woolley, 2020).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Glikson & Woolley, 2020
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“McKnight et al. (2011) explained that trust in technology is qualitatively different from trust in people.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites McKnight et al. (2011)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The TAM is a theoretical framework for explaining the technology usage behavior that has been validated in different technologies across various populations”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Venkatesh & Davis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A total of 640 respondents (50.1% female, age M = 46.43, SD = 17.83, 65.9% White, 12% Black or African American, 12% Hispanic, 5.9% Asian, 4.4% other) participated in the study.”
plainn = 640- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For instance, Glikson and Woolley (2020) organized the literature on trust in AI based on the factors that shaped users' cognitive and emotional trust.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Glikson & Woolley, 2020
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“| Basis of trust in people Mayer et al., (1995) | Basis of trust in technology Lankton et al. (2015) | Basis of trust in automation Lee & Moray (1992) |”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lee & Moray (1992)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further, human-like trust may explain emotional trust and emotional attachment to technology.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our findings provide further support for the utility of the TAM in explaining the acceptance of AI technologies and the added contribution of trust within the model.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The distinctive perceptions of human-like trust and functionality trust align with studies that propose multiple dimensions and factors of trust in AI and automation (Glikson & Woolley, 2020; Hoff & Bashir, 2015; J. D. Lee & See, 2004).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Glikson & Woolley, 2020
- Not checked yetcites Hoff & Bashir, 2015
- Not checked yetcites J. D. Lee & See, 2004
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“As past research has already confirmed, trust in AI can be built through embedding specific principles in the design and governance of AI, as suggested in recent publications using the fairness, accountability, transparency, explainability framework (Shin, 2020b; Shin & Park, 2019).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Shin, 2020b
- Not checked yetcites Shin & Park, 2019
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Still, an opposite direction of the relationship was also found to be valid in another study (Shin, 2020a).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Shin, 2020a
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“We proposed trust as an antecedent of perceived usefulness based on the findings from the past TAM literature (K. Wu et al., 2011).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites K. Wu et al., 2011
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, we focused on AI technology applications in the form of consumer products (i.e., voice assistants and smart technologies), which tend be associated with lower risks.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Hoff and Bashir (2015) suggested three layers of trust in automation (dispositional trust, situational trust, and learned trust) based on their review of trust in AI.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hoff & Bashir, 2015
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It appears the duality of AI as both a functional and social technology must be considered when designing trustworthy AI.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“The cognitive construct involves the rational evaluation of AI while emotional trust is typically influenced by irrational factors.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Glikson & Woolley, 2020
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This impact may be because consumers tend to believe that AI technologies are complicated and difficult to use.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“| Basis of trust in people Mayer et al., (1995) | Basis of trust in technology Lankton et al. (2015) | Basis of trust in automation Lee & Moray (1992) |”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mayer et al., (1995)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The model explains that when people consider an AI technology to be easy to use, they are more likely to trust the technology and consider it useful.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These findings are consistent with Study 1 and prior literature (Gefen et al., 2003; I.-L. Wu & Chen, 2005).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gefen et al., 2003
- Not checked yetcites I.-L. Wu & Chen, 2005
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“| Basis of trust in people Mayer et al., (1995) | Basis of trust in technology Lankton et al. (2015) | Basis of trust in automation Lee & Moray (1992) |”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lankton et al. (2015)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“N/A | 𝛼 = .92 |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“𝛼 = .89 | 𝛼 = .90”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“𝛼 = .92 | 𝛼 = .90”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“𝛼 = .98 | 𝛼 = .91”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“𝛼 = .81 | N/A”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“𝛼 = .90 | 𝛼 = .91”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“N/A | 𝛼 = .91 |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
The paper relies on this without support.
Perception of fairness and justice is associated with human trust in AI.
“Moreover, the perception of fairness and justice will be associated with human trust in AI.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Trust is relevant throughout the lifecycle of a technology.
“Indeed, trust is relevant throughout the lifecycle of a technology.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Users who participate in an experience with technology build ideas about whether it is useful and easy to use based on their experience of use.
“Users who participate in an experience with technology build ideas about whether it is useful and easy to use based on their experience of use.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Trust is a dynamic concept that varies depending on the stage of technology.
“Second, trust is a dynamic concept that varies depending on the stage of technology.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Participants in an online survey are likely to have greater access to and experience with various forms of information technology.
“Participants in an online survey are likely to have greater access to and experience with various forms of information technology.”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Regarding reliance, Choung et al. (2023) demonstrated that trust significantly influences reliance intentions and Kahr et al. (2024) found that trust and reliance on AI advice were significantly higher when the AI model was highly accurate and that trust increased over repeated interactions.”
From Investigating appropriate reliance on AI-Based decision support systems: the role of expertise, trust, and self-confidence (2025) · cites this paper as Choung et al., 2023
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“These findings underscore that trust has a significant impact on perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and attitudes toward GenAI.”
From Artificial intelligence and communication technologies in academia: faculty perceptions and the adoption of generative AI (2025) · cites this paper as Choung et al., 2022
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- Not confirmedχ²(1) = 0.32reported p = .58 · recomputed p = .572
“χ 2 (1) = .32, p = .58”
- Consistentχ²(1) = 4.92reported p = .03 · recomputed p = .027
“χ 2 (1) = 4.92, p = .03”
- Consistentχ²(1) = 4.85reported p = .03 · recomputed p = .028
“χ 2 (1) = 4.85, p = .03”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
§ Measures
“based on a principal components exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with an Oblimin rotation.”
§ Tables and Figures
“The extraction method was principal axis factoring with an oblique (promax with Kaiser normalization) rotation.”
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
“| TRU → PU→ ATT → BI | .03 | .06 | .16 | H4c |”
Reported 0.03 · recomputed 0.101556
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Tables and Figures
“| Smart technologies have the features necessary to complete key tasks. (Competence) | .08 | .76 | .67 |”
§ Tables and Figures
“| Smart technologies have the features necessary to complete key tasks. (Competence) | -.03 | .87 | .72 |”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ [Figure 2 About Here]
“Regression estimates indicated that all four proposed predictors of AI voice assistant usage intention have statistically significant direct and indirect effects on the dependent variables.”
§ Discussion
“Although trust does not directly affect usage intention, the construct appears to be pivotal in improving user perception of the utility of voice assistants and in building positive attitudes toward them.”
Citations
Cites
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483 · cited 5×
“The original TAM proposed perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use to be the two determinants of future usage intention (Davis, 1989).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentiallavaan : An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling
Rosseel, Y. (2012) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v048.i02 · Cited by 27,955 · cited 1×
“The analysis was conducted in R using the lavaan package (Rosseel, 2012).”
MethodA Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926 · Cited by 23,066 · cited 3×
“Later, more elaborate versions of the TAM (i.e., TAM 2, TAM 3) were developed, incorporating additional external factors, such as social norms and perceived enjoyment (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000), and treating attitude as a predictor of behavior.”
BackgroundMethodAn integrative model of organizational trust
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258792 · Cited by 10,736 · cited 7×
“In interpersonal relationships, this corresponds to the consistency of behaviors associated with adherence to a set of norms (Mayer et al., 1995).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialArtificial intelligence: A modern approach
Nilsson, N. J. (1996) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/0004-3702(96)00007-0 · Cited by 10,730
Barredo Arrieta, A., Díaz-Rodríguez, N., Del Ser, J., Bennetot, A., Tabik, S., Barbado, A., Garcia, S., Gil-Lopez, S., Molina, D., Benjamins, R., et al. (2020) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2019.12.012 · Cited by 10,423 · cited 1×
“…growing fear that our reliance on AI comes at the cost of human agency, and that fear is further stoked by the black-box nature of machine learning algorithms, which generate a response that mimics human response without adequate explanation of the underlying process (Barredo Arrieta et al., 2020).”
BackgroundI.—COMPUTING MACHINERY AND INTELLIGENCE
TURING, A. M. (1950) · Mind · doi:10.1093/mind/lix.236.433 · Cited by 10,290
Not So Different After All: A Cross-Discipline View Of Trust
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1998.926617 · Cited by 10,274 · cited 1×
“Trust is defined as “a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another” (Rousseau et al., 1998, p. 395).”
BackgroundTrust and TAM in Online Shopping: An Integrated Model1
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036519 · Cited by 8,635 · cited 6×
“This study follows the hypotheses tested by other TAMrelated studies that have proposed trust as an antecedent of perceived usefulness and subsequent to perceived ease of use while having a direct effect on attitude (Gefen et al., 2003; Kim, 2012; Wu et al., 2011).”
MethodResultInfluentialTechnology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x · Cited by 8,159 · cited 1×
“Later, more elaborate versions of the TAM (i.e., TAM 2, TAM 3) were developed, incorporating additional external factors, such as social norms and perceived enjoyment (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000), and treating attitude as a predictor of behavior.”
BackgroundTrust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance
Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392 · Cited by 6,605 · cited 5×
“For human-like trust in AI, trust is in the agent, not in the specific actions and operations of the agent (Lee & See, 2004).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialThe global landscape of AI ethics guidelines
Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2 · Cited by 6,220 · cited 1×
“Their guidelines commonly recommend that trustworthy AI should be built into the system by design (Hagendorff, 2020; Jobin et al., 2019).”
Background(1997) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.34-3702 · Cited by 4,872
Human trust in artificial intelligence: Review of empirical research
Glikson, E., & Woolley, A. W. (2020) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/annals.2018.0057 · Cited by 2,921 · cited 5×
“Glikson and Woolley (2020) identified factors that predict cognitive and emotional trust in AI.”
BackgroundInfluentialTrust in Automation: Integrating Empirical Evidence on Factors That Influence Trust
Hoff, K. A., & Bashir, M. (2015) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720814547570 · Cited by 2,817
An integrative model of organizational trust: past, present, and future
Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2007.24348410 · Cited by 2,794 · cited 12×
“In interpersonal relationships, this corresponds to the consistency of behaviors associated with adherence to a set of norms (Mayer et al., 1995).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialTechnology acceptance model: a literature review from 1986 to 2013
Marangunić, N., & Granić, A. (2015) · Universal Access in the Information Society · doi:10.1007/s10209-014-0348-1 · Cited by 2,458
A Meta-Analysis of Factors Affecting Trust in Human-Robot Interaction
Hancock, P. A., Billings, D. R., Schaefer, K. E., Chen, J. Y. C., de Visser, E. J., & Parasuraman, R. (2011) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720811417254 · Cited by 2,051 · cited 1×
“However, other studies have reported weak or no effects of anthropomorphism on trust (Erebak & Turgut, 2019; Hancock et al., 2011).”
BackgroundThe Ethics of AI Ethics: An Evaluation of Guidelines
Hagendorff, T. (2020) · Minds and Machines · doi:10.1007/s11023-020-09517-8 · Cited by 1,911 · cited 1×
“Their guidelines commonly recommend that trustworthy AI should be built into the system by design (Hagendorff, 2020; Jobin et al., 2019).”
BackgroundThe Ethics of AI Ethics -- An Evaluation of Guidelines
Hagendorff, T. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1903.03425 · Cited by 1,907 · cited 1×
“Their guidelines commonly recommend that trustworthy AI should be built into the system by design (Hagendorff, 2020; Jobin et al., 2019).”
BackgroundShin, D. (2021) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102551 · Cited by 1,548 · cited 7×
“For example, Shin (2021d) examined the explainability of algorithms as a key predictor of FAT and tested whether explainability and FAT further predict users’ trust in and perceptions of the functional attributes (i.e., accuracy, personalization, credibility) of algorithmic journalism.”
BackgroundInfluentialThe mind in the machine: Anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle
Waytz, A., Heafner, J., & Epley, N. (2014) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2014.01.005 · Cited by 1,439 · cited 2×
“Studies have found that the embodiment of an agent can increase trust because users are better able to perceive its social presence (K. Kim et al., 2018; Shin, 2021d; Waytz et al., 2014).”
BackgroundLee, M. K. (2018) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/2053951718756684 · Cited by 1,338 · cited 1×
“Past studies have examined trust in various applications of AI, including algorithmic journalism (Shin, 2020c), healthcare AI (Lee & Rich, 2021), and AI used for hiring and work evaluations (Lee, 2018).”
BackgroundInvestigating the Importance of Trust on Adopting an Autonomous Vehicle
Choi, J. K., & Ji, Y. G. (2015) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2015.1070549 · Cited by 1,269 · cited 1×
“The finding is in line with studies that have tested the impact of these constructs on the adoption of various forms of technology (e.g., Beldad & Hegner, 2018; Choi & Ji, 2015).”
ResultTrust in a specific technology: An investigation of its components and measures
Mcknight, D. H., Carter, M., Thatcher, J. B., & Clay, P. F. (2011) · ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems · doi:10.1145/1985347.1985353 · Cited by 1,185 · cited 7×
“, 1995) and trust in technology (Mcknight et al., 2011): benevolence/helpfulness, integrity/reliability, and competence/functionality.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialGorwa, R., Binns, R., & Katzenbach, C. (2020) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/2053951719897945 · Cited by 1,097 · cited 2×
“AI is ubiquitous in modern life, enabling smart technologies and applications, such as smart home devices, fitness trackers, autonomous driving systems, and social media platforms (Gorwa et al., 2020; Lockey et al., 2021).”
BackgroundEffect of trust on customer acceptance of Internet banking
Suh, B., & Han, I. (2002) · Electronic Commerce Research and Applications · doi:10.1016/s1567-4223(02)00017-0 · Cited by 901 · cited 1×
“The role of trust was tested in the use of a new information system (Tung et al., 2008) and different online services, such as online games (Wu & Liu, 2007), banking (Suh & Han, 2002), social network sites (Sledgianowski & Kulviwat, 2009), and shopping (Gefen et al., 2003), among others.”
MethodWu, I.-L., & Chen, J.-L. (2005) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.03.003 · Cited by 879 · cited 1×
“These findings are consistent with Study 1 and prior literature (Gefen et al., 2003; Wu & Chen, 2005).”
ResultMcLean, G., & Osei-Frimpong, K. (2019) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.05.009 · Cited by 762 · cited 2×
“Voice assistants are designed to be more human-like (McLean & Osei-Frimpong, 2019), with their voice feature encouraging users to adopt the same social responses that they habitually use in their interpersonal relationships (Reeves & Nass, 1996).”
BackgroundMethodRole of fairness, accountability, and transparency in algorithmic affordance
Shin, D., & Park, Y. J. (2019) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.04.019 · Cited by 643 · cited 2×
“As past research has already confirmed, trust in AI can be built through embedding specific principles in the design and governance of AI, as suggested in recent publications using the fairness, accountability, transparency, explainability framework (Shin, 2020b; Shin & Park, 2019).”
BackgroundMethodAlmost human: Anthropomorphism increases trust resilience in cognitive agents.
de Visser, E. J., Monfort, S. S., McKendrick, R., Smith, M. A. B., McKnight, P. E., Krueger, F., & Parasuraman, R. (2016) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied · doi:10.1037/xap0000092 · Cited by 614 · cited 1×
“Anthropomorphism has been associated with greater trust resilience, which prevents loss of trust (de Visser et al., 2016).”
BackgroundTrustworthy artificial intelligence
Thiebes, S., Lins, S., & Sunyaev, A. (2021) · Electronic Markets · doi:10.1007/s12525-020-00441-4 · Cited by 595 · cited 2×
“Such concerns, compounded by the erosion of trust in institutions and governments (Edelman, 2021), underscore the importance of building trustworthy AI system to instill confidence among users (Gillath et al., 2021; Thiebes et al., 2020) and to further our understanding of the social and psychological mechanisms of tr…”
BackgroundUsing Social Network Sites: The Effects of Playfulness, Critical Mass and Trust in a Hedonic Context
Sledgianowski, D., & Kulviwat, S. (2009) · Journal of Computer Information Systems · doi:10.1080/08874417.2009.11645342 · Cited by 568 · cited 1×
“The role of trust was tested in the use of a new information system (Tung et al., 2008) and different online services, such as online games (Wu & Liu, 2007), banking (Suh & Han, 2002), social network sites (Sledgianowski & Kulviwat, 2009), and shopping (Gefen et al., 2003), among others.”
MethodTechnology, Humanness, and Trust: Rethinking Trust in Technology
Marshall University, Lankton, N., McKnight, D. H., Michigan State University, Tripp, J., & Baylor University (2015) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00411 · Cited by 553 · cited 1×
“In one of McKnight’s later studies, Lankton et al. (2015) demonstrated that for technology with greater humanness, a trust-inhumans scale works better at predicting relevant outcomes than a trust-in-technology scale.”
BackgroundShin, D. (2020) · Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media · doi:10.1080/08838151.2020.1843357 · Cited by 487
Artificial Intelligence in Society
OECD (2019) · doi:10.1787/eedfee77-en · Cited by 487
TUNG, F., CHANG, S., & CHOU, C. (2008) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2007.06.006 · Cited by 476 · cited 1×
“The role of trust was tested in the use of a new information system (Tung et al., 2008) and different online services, such as online games (Wu & Liu, 2007), banking (Suh & Han, 2002), social network sites (Sledgianowski & Kulviwat, 2009), and shopping (Gefen et al., 2003), among others.”
MethodAttachment and trust in artificial intelligence
Gillath, O., Ai, T., Branicky, M. S., Keshmiri, S., Davison, R. B., & Spaulding, R. (2021) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2020.106607 · Cited by 448 · cited 7×
“Past studies have applied interpersonal trust to human technology relationships (Calhoun et al., 2019), especially when the technology has human-like characteristics (Gillath et al., 2021).”
BackgroundInfluentialTransparency and trust in artificial intelligence systems
Schmidt, P., Biessmann, F., & Teubner, T. (2020) · Journal of Decision Systems · doi:10.1080/12460125.2020.1819094 · Cited by 440 · cited 1×
“We expected that both dimensions of trust would influence technology adoption and use (Schmidt et al., 2020), especially for technologies that are associated with risk and uncertainty.”
BackgroundBeldad, A. D., & Hegner, S. M. (2017) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2017.1403220 · Cited by 422
Gower, K. K. (2016) · The SAGE Encyclopedia of Corporate Reputation · doi:10.4135/9781483376493.n106 · Cited by 402
Wu, K., Zhao, Y. C., Zhu, Q., Tan, X., & Zheng, H. (2011) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2011.03.004 · Cited by 399 · cited 4×
“Subsequent studies have incorporated other external factors into the TAM, and trust has been examined as a key factor in the acceptance of emerging technologies (Wu et al., 2011).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialSystematic Review: Trust-Building Factors and Implications for Conversational Agent Design
Rheu, M., Shin, J. Y., Peng, W., & Huh-Yoo, J. (2021) · International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2020.1807710 · Cited by 360 · cited 1×
“Many recent studies on trust in AI have focused on exploring factors that contribute to trustworthy AI (Gillath et al., 2021; Lockey et al., 2021; Rheu et al., 2021).”
BackgroundKim, J. B. (2012) · Electronic Commerce Research · doi:10.1007/s10660-012-9089-5 · Cited by 324 · cited 2×
“This study follows the hypotheses tested by other TAMrelated studies that have proposed trust as an antecedent of perceived usefulness and subsequent to perceived ease of use while having a direct effect on attitude (Gefen et al., 2003; Kim, 2012; Wu et al., 2011).”
BackgroundResultJournal of information Science
Thompson, G. B. (1984) · Journal of Information Science · doi:10.1177/016555158400900204 · Cited by 237
A Review of Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Challenges, Vulnerabilities and Future Directions
Lockey, S., Gillespie, N. A., Holm, D., & Someh, I. (2021) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.24251/hicss.2021.664 · Cited by 233 · cited 4×
“AI is ubiquitous in modern life, enabling smart technologies and applications, such as smart home devices, fitness trackers, autonomous driving systems, and social media platforms (Gorwa et al., 2020; Lockey et al., 2021).”
BackgroundInfluentialWhy different trust relationships matter for information systems users
Söllner, M., Hoffmann, A., & Leimeister, J. M. (2016) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/ejis.2015.17 · Cited by 223 · cited 3×
“As trust is considered to be another significant predictor for the adoption of new technologies (Söllner et al., 2016), previous studies have investigated the connections between”
BackgroundInfluentialShin, D. (2020) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2020.106344 · Cited by 219
Kim, K., Boelling, L., Haesler, S., Bailenson, J., Bruder, G., & Welch, G. F. (2018) · 2018 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR) · doi:10.1109/ismar.2018.00039 · Cited by 206 · cited 1×
“Studies have found that the embodiment of an agent can increase trust because users are better able to perceive its social presence (Kim et al., 2018; Shin, 2021c; Waytz et al., 2014).”
BackgroundGaudiello, I., Zibetti, E., Lefort, S., Chetouani, M., & Ivaldi, S. (2015) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.057 · Cited by 203 · cited 2×
“Today, with increasingly realistic and socially capable chatbots, research explores the similarities between how people treat other people and how they treat technologies (Gaudiello et al., 2016; Sundar et al., 2017).”
BackgroundShin, D. (2021) · Journal of Information Science · doi:10.1177/0165551520985495 · Cited by 188 · cited 7×
“For example, Shin (2021d) examined the explainability of algorithms as a key predictor of FAT and tested whether explainability and FAT further predict users’ trust in and perceptions of the functional attributes (i.e., accuracy, personalization, credibility) of algorithmic journalism.”
BackgroundInfluentialMadhavan, P., & Wiegmann, D. A. (2007) · Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872007x230154 · Cited by 176 · cited 1×
“Other studies have noted that human users have a distinctive view on interacting with technologies, and those works have suggested that the principles of trust in interpersonal relations cannot be directly applicable to human-to-machine trust (e.g., Madhavan & Wiegmann, 2007).”
BackgroundVoice Assistants and Smart Speakers in Everyday Life and in Education
Terzopoulos, G., & Satratzemi, M. (2020) · Informatics in Education · doi:10.15388/infedu.2020.21 · Cited by 165 · cited 1×
“…conversational agents, such as Apple’s Siri, Amazon’s Alexa, and Google Assistant, which have dramatically increased in use over the past few years (Terzopoulos & Satratzemi, 2020), warranting a closer examination of interaction with the technology and motivations underlying the adoption and use.”
BackgroundHow do people judge the credibility of algorithmic sources?
Shin, D. (2021) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-021-01158-4 · Cited by 158 · cited 7×
“For example, Shin (2021d) examined the explainability of algorithms as a key predictor of FAT and tested whether explainability and FAT further predict users’ trust in and perceptions of the functional attributes (i.e., accuracy, personalization, credibility) of algorithmic journalism.”
BackgroundInfluentialThe Rhetoric and Reality of Anthropomorphism in Artificial Intelligence
Watson, D. (2019) · Minds and Machines · doi:10.1007/s11023-019-09506-6 · Cited by 148 · cited 3×
“Inspired by human intelligence, artificial intelligence (AI) systems are becoming increasingly adept in their ability to learn, reason, self-correct and emulate human decisions in some domains (Russell et al., 2016; Watson, 2019).”
BackgroundLee, M. K., & Rich, K. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445570 · Cited by 145 · cited 1×
“Past studies have examined trust in various applications of AI, including algorithmic journalism (Shin, 2020c), healthcare AI (Lee & Rich, 2021), and AI used for hiring and work evaluations (Lee, 2018).”
BackgroundShin, D. (2021) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444821993801 · Cited by 143 · cited 7×
“For example, Shin (2021d) examined the explainability of algorithms as a key predictor of FAT and tested whether explainability and FAT further predict users’ trust in and perceptions of the functional attributes (i.e., accuracy, personalization, credibility) of algorithmic journalism.”
BackgroundInfluentialSundar, S. S., Jung, E. H., Waddell, T. F., & Kim, K. J. (2016) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.08.006 · Cited by 139 · cited 3×
“Today, with increasingly realistic and socially capable chatbots, research explores the similarities between how people treat other people and how they treat technologies (Gaudiello et al., 2016; Sundar et al., 2017).”
BackgroundDefining AI in Policy versus Practice
Krafft, P. M., Young, M., Katell, M., Huang, K., & Bugingo, G. (2020) · Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society · doi:10.1145/3375627.3375835 · Cited by 129 · cited 2×
“The uniqueness of AI is characterized by the integration of its functionality with humanlike capabilities (Krafft et al., 2020).”
BackgroundCaregivers’ attitudes toward potential robot coworkers in elder care
Erebak, S., & Turgut, T. (2018) · Cognition Technology & Work · doi:10.1007/s10111-018-0512-0 · Cited by 79
Calhoun, C. S., Bobko, P., Gallimore, J. J., & Lyons, J. B. (2019) · Journal of Trust Research · doi:10.1080/21515581.2019.1579730 · Cited by 74 · cited 2×
“Past studies have applied interpersonal trust to human technology relationships (Calhoun et al., 2019), especially when the technology has human-like characteristics (Gillath et al.”
BackgroundShin, D. (2020) · Journalism Practice · doi:10.1080/17512786.2020.1841018 · Cited by 64
Why Does Explainability Matter in News Analytic Systems? Proposing Explainable Analytic Journalism
Shin, D. (2021) · Journalism Studies · doi:10.1080/1461670x.2021.1916984 · Cited by 42 · cited 7×
“For example, Shin (2021d) examined the explainability of algorithms as a key predictor of FAT and tested whether explainability and FAT further predict users’ trust in and perceptions of the functional attributes (i.e., accuracy, personalization, credibility) of algorithmic journalism.”
BackgroundInfluential
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- AI HLEG (2019). Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI. European Commission. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2759/346720 · DOI
- Shin D, 2021, New Media & Society, 1
- Wu J., 2007, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 8, 128
Cited by
Sorted by citations
What factors contribute to the acceptance of artificial intelligence? A systematic review
Kelly, S., Kaye, S.-A., & Oviedo-Trespalacios, Ó. (2022) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2022.101925 · Cited by 1,340
Schiavo, G., Businaro, S., & Zancanaro, M. (2024) · Technology in Society · doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102537 · Cited by 284
Hyun Baek, T., & Kim, M. (2023) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2023.102030 · Cited by 319
Bergdahl, J., Latikka, R., Celuch, M., Savolainen, I., Soares Mantere, E., Savela, N., & Oksanen, A. (2023) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2023.102013 · Cited by 204
“Previous studies have also stated that people ’ s general attitudes toward AI are linked to their acceptance and the use of AI in their daily lives (Choung et al., 2023; Gillespie et al., 2021; Kelly et al., 2023; Lancelot Miltgen et al., 2013; Schepman and Rodway, 2020; Schepman and Rodway, 2022).”
Maheshwari, G. (2023) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-12333-z · Cited by 216
“In the context of the technology acceptance model and its application to understand the usage of AI, trust perception indirectly influences the behavioural intention to use AI technology and its associated applications (Choung et al., 2023).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Choung, H., David, P., & Ross, A.
- Affiliations
- Michigan State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Choung, Hyesun
- Venue
- International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2022-04-20
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1727-1739
- ISSN
- 1044-7318 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7590
- OpenAlex
- W4221014470
- Semantic Scholar
- f281ad6573ed8ea7fb3116a3747b0e80ef522ea9
- Cited by
- 963
- References
- 62
- Citations by year
- 2026: 402 · 2025: 360 · 2024: 142 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 5
- FWCI
- 117.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › AI in Service Interactions
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Keywords
- trust in AI, technology acceptance, intention to use, voice assistants, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, attitudes toward technology, trustworthy AI, technology acceptance model
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
