Cited by 89Technology Adoption and User BehaviourPrivacy, Security, and Data ProtectionAI in Service Interactions

Evaluating If Trust and Personal Information Privacy Concerns Are Barriers to Using Health Insurance That Explicitly Utilizes AI

Open access
Zarifis, Alex, Kawalek, Peter, Azadegan, Aida·2021·Journal of Internet Commerce

Abstract

Trust and privacy have emerged as significant concerns in online transactions. Sharing information on health is especially sensitive but it is necessary for purchasing and utilizing health insurance. Evidence shows that consumers are increasingly comfortable with technology in place of humans, but the expanding use of AI potentially changes this. This research explores whether trust and privacy concern are barriers to the adoption of AI in health insurance. Two scenarios are compared: The first scenario has limited AI that is not in the interface and its presence is not explicitly revealed to the consumer. In the second scenario there is an AI interface and AI evaluation, and this is explicitly revealed to the consumer. The two scenarios were modeled and compared using SEM PLS-MGA. The findings show that trust is significantly lower in the second scenario where AI is visible. Privacy concerns are higher with AI but the difference is not statistically significant within the model.

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

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

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/15332861.2020.1832817

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

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

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

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

Claims other papers make about this one

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

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zarifis, A., Kawalek, P., & Azadegan, A.
Affiliations
  • Loughborough University (GB)
  • University of Reading (GB)
Corresponding author
Zarifis, Alex
Venue
Journal of Internet Commerce
Published
2020-10-19
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
66-83
ISSN
  • 1533-2861 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-287X
OpenAlex
W3094276725
Cited by
89
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 3
FWCI
6.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Internet Commerce (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
  • Loughborough University Research Repository (Loughborough University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
Keywords
trust, privacy concerns, health insurance, artificial intelligence, AI adoption barriers, AI visibility, consumer trust in AI, personal information disclosure, health data sharing

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