CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 745Gender and Technology in EducationEthics and Social Impacts of AITechnology Adoption and User Behaviour

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 121 of the 125 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Roles of Personality Traits, AI Anxiety, and Demographic Factors in Attitudes toward Artificial Intelligence

Open access
Kaya, Feridun, Aydin, Fatih, Schepman, Astrid, Rodway, Paul, Yetişensoy, Okan, Demir Kaya, Meva·2024·International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction
DOI 10.1080/10447318.2022.2151730
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The present study adapted the General Attitudes toward Artificial Intelligence Scale (GAAIS) to Turkish and investigated the impact of personality traits, artificial intelligence anxiety, and demographics on attitudes toward artificial intelligence. The sample consisted of 259 female (74%) and 91 male (26%) individuals aged between 18 and 51 (Mean = 24.23). Measures taken were demographics, the Ten-Item Personality Inventory, the Artificial Intelligence Anxiety Scale, and the General Attitudes toward Artificial Intelligence Scale. The Turkish GAAIS had good validity and reliability. Hierarchical Multiple Linear Regression Analyses showed that positive attitudes toward artificial intelligence were significantly predicted by the level of computer use (β = 0.139, p = 0.013), level of knowledge about artificial intelligence (β = 0.119, p = 0.029), and AI learning anxiety (β = −0.172, p = 0.004). Negative attitudes toward artificial intelligence were significantly predicted by agreeableness (β = 0.120, p = 0.019), AI configuration anxiety (β = −0.379, p < 0.001), and AI learning anxiety (β = −0.211, p < 0.001). Personality traits, AI anxiety, and demographics play important roles in attitudes toward AI. Results are discussed in light of the previous research and theoretical explanations.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10447318.2022.2151730

Cites

121 of 121 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 125 references

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Chuang, L.-M., Liu, C.-C., & Kao, H.-K. (2016). The adoption of fintech service: TAM perspective. International Journal of Management Administrative Sciences, 3(7), 1–15.
  2. Circiumaru A. (2022). [ Futureproofing EU law the case of algorithmic discrimination] [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Oxford.
  3. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory and NEO Five-Factor Inventory: Professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.
  4. 10.2759/835661 · DOI
  5. Figueiredo M. M. (2019). [Artificial Intelligence acceptance: Morphological elements of the acceptance of Artificial Intelligence] [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Católica Porto Business School.
  6. 10.1080/1369183x.2013.8261 · DOI
  7. Mark, L., Davis, J., Dow, T., Godfrey, W., & Proyas, A. (2004). I, robot movie [Motion picture]. 20th Century Fox.
  8. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  9. Reinhart, R. J. (2018, March 6). Most Americans already using artificial intelligence products. Gallup. https://perma.cc/RVY5-WP9W
  10. Sánchez-Nicolás, E. (2019, August 29). All “big five” tech firms listened to private conversations. EUobserver. https://euobserver.com/science/145759
  11. Thanabordeekij, P., Sudtasan, T., & Tanamee, D. (2020). Integrating trust into the technology acceptance model: The case of mobile banking adoption in Myanmar. Panyapiwat Journal, 12(3), 107–119.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Kaya, F., Aydin, F., Schepman, A., Rodway, P., Yetişensoy, O., & Demir Kaya, M.
Affiliations
  • Atatürk University (TR)
  • Department of Counseling and Guidance, Sivas Cumhuriyet University, Sivas, Turkey
  • University of Chester (GB)
  • Department of Social Sciences, Bayburt University, Bayburt, Turkey
  • Department of Psychology, Ataturk University, Erzurum, Turkey
Corresponding author
Schepman, Astrid
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2022-12-07
Volume
40
Issue
2
Pages
497-514
ISSN
  • 1044-7318 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7590
DOI
10.1080/10447318.2022.2151730
OpenAlex
W4311843323
Cited by
688
References
125
Citations by year
2026: 264 · 2025: 283 · 2024: 120 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 1
FWCI
146.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • ChesterRep (University of Chester) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DSpace@Bayburt (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Technology in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
Keywords
attitudes toward AI, AI anxiety, personality traits, agreeableness, computer use, AI knowledge, scale adaptation, Turkish adaptation, demographic factors

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