Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Meta-Analytic Findings
Abstract
Objective: The present meta-analysis sought to determine significant factors that predict trust in artificial intelligence (AI). Such factors were divided into those relating to (a) the human trustor, (b) the AI trustee, and (c) the shared context of their interaction. Background: There are many factors influencing trust in robots, automation, and technology in general, and there have been several meta-analytic attempts to understand the antecedents of trust in these areas. However, no targeted meta-analysis has been performed examining the antecedents of trust in AI. Method: Data from 65 articles examined the three predicted categories, as well as the subcategories of human characteristics and abilities, AI performance and attributes, and contextual tasking. Lastly, four common uses for AI (i.e., chatbots, robots, automated vehicles, and nonembodied, plain algorithms) were examined as further potential moderating factors. Results: Results showed that all of the examined categories were significant predictors of trust in AI as well as many individual antecedents such as AI reliability and anthropomorphism, among many others. Conclusion: Overall, the results of this meta-analysis determined several factors that influence trust, including some that have no bearing on AI performance. Additionally, we highlight the areas where there is currently no empirical research. Application: Findings from this analysis will allow designers to build systems that elicit higher or lower levels of trust, as they require.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Kaplan et al. extended system-related antecedents of trust in artificial intelligence by adding human-related and context-related antecedents.
“While all three factors, performance, process, and purpose, relate to the system itself, in a recent meta-analysis, Kaplan et al. [60] extended these system-related antecedents of trust in artifcial intelligence by adding human-related antecedents of trust (e.g., individual's disposition to trust and ability, attitudes), and context-related antecedents of trust (e.g., risk of the situation).”
From Measuring and Understanding Trust Calibrations for Automated Systems: A Survey of the State-Of-The-Art and Future Directions (2023) · cites this paper as [60]
The antecedents of trust uncovered in prior reviews vary across contexts.
“we see that the antecedents of trust uncovered in these reviews vary across contexts.”
From What Do We Mean When We Talk about Trust in Social Media? A Systematic Review (2023) · cites this paper as [52]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 18 · Cited by 397
- Authors
- Kaplan, A. D., Kessler, T. T., Brill, J. C., & Hancock, P. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Central Florida (US)
- Georgia Tech Research Institute (US)
- United States Air Force Research Laboratory (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kaplan, Alexandra D.
- Venue
- Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2021-05-28
- Volume
- 65
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 337-359
- ISSN
- 0018-7208 (ISSN-L)
- 1547-8181
- OpenAlex
- W3165767308
- Cited by
- 397
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2026: 130 · 2025: 137 · 2024: 80 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 2
- FWCI
- 31.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Air Force Research Laboratory
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
- Keywords
- trust in AI, antecedents of trust, human-AI interaction, AI reliability, anthropomorphism, AI performance, chatbots, robots, autonomous vehicles
- MeSH terms
- Artificial Intelligence, Automation, Humans, Reproducibility of Results, Trust
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