The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Lower Artificial Intelligence Literacy Predicts Greater AI Receptivity
Abstract
As artificial intelligence (AI) transforms society, understanding factors that influence AI receptivity is increasingly important. The current research investigates which types of consumers have greater AI receptivity. Contrary to expectations revealed in four surveys, cross-country data and six additional studies find that people with lower AI literacy are typically more receptive to AI. This lower literacy–greater receptivity link is not explained by differences in perceptions of AI's capability, ethicality, or feared impact on humanity. Instead, this link occurs because people with lower AI literacy are more likely to perceive AI as magical and experience feelings of awe in the face of AI's execution of tasks that seem to require uniquely human attributes. In line with this theorizing, the lower literacy–higher receptivity link is mediated by perceptions of AI as magical and is moderated among tasks not assumed to require distinctly human attributes. These findings suggest that companies may benefit from shifting their marketing efforts and product development toward consumers with lower AI literacy. In addition, efforts to demystify AI may inadvertently reduce its appeal.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“Findings consistently showed that lower AI literacy was associated with greater AI receptivity, indicating that individuals with less understanding of AI were more willing to adopt and trust AI technologies (Tully et al. 2025).”
From Artificial Intelligence in Crisis Communication: Investigating Source Effects and Matched Crisis Responses on Stakeholder Perceptions (2026) · cites this paper as Tully et al. 2025
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism
Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.114.4.864 · Cited by 4,069 · cited 1×
“As discussed by Epley, Waytz, and Cacioppo (2007), people tend to ascribe human characteristics to nonhuman agents, especially when these agents exhibit behavior that resembles human actions.”
What is AI Literacy? Competencies and Design Considerations
Long, D., & Magerko, B. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3313831.3376727 · Cited by 3,241 · cited 2×
“It typically requires motivation from the learner as well as the ability to calibrate materials and tailor content to a person ’ s current AI literacy (Long and Magerko 2020).”
Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err.
Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P., & Massey, C. (2015) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/xge0000033 · Cited by 3,232 · cited 1×
“…exhibit favorable responses to new technologies (i.e., “ automation bias ” or “ algorithm appreciation ” ; e.g., Longoni and Cian 2022; Mosier and Skitka 2018) and cases in which consumers are averse to new technologies (i.e., “ algo-rithm aversion ” ; e.g., Dietvorst, Simmons, and Massey 2015).”
Consumers and artificial intelligence: An experiential perspective
Puntoni, S., Reczek, R. W., Giesler, M., & Botti, S. (2021) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/0022242920953847 · Cited by 1,547 · cited 2×
“First, we contribute to research on the psychological responses to AI (Puntoni et al. 2021; Valenzuela et al. 2024).”
Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news
Pennycook, G., Cannon, T. D., & Rand, D. G. (2018) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0000465 · Cited by 1,268
Brynjolfsson, E., Li, D., & Raymond, L. (2025) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/qje/qjae044 · Cited by 1,083
Yes, but what’s the mechanism? (don’t expect an easy answer).
Bullock, J. G., Green, D. P., & Ha, S. E. (2010) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0018933 · Cited by 1,063
Artificial Intelligence in Utilitarian vs. Hedonic Contexts: The “Word-of-Machine” Effect
Longoni, C., & Cian, L. (2022) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/0022242920957347 · Cited by 831 · cited 2×
“…of the AI agent (e.g., performance, actual and perceived capabilities, social distance) affect consumers ’ responses to AI (Castelo, Bos, and Lehmann 2019; De Bellis, Johar, and Poletti 2023; Longoni and Cian 2022; Yalcin et al. 2022; for reviews, see Puntoni et al. 2021; Valenzuela et al. 2024).”
Self-citationUnderstanding User Beliefs About Algorithmic Curation in the Facebook News Feed
Rader, E., & Gray, R. (2015) · Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2702123.2702174 · Cited by 386 · cited 1×
“Academic work has often con fl ated AI knowledge with opinions about how algorithms operate in speci fi c settings like Facebook News Feed and TikTok (e.g., Rader and Gray 2015; Siles, Valerio-Alfaro, and Meléndez-Moran 2022), or measured knowledge in terms of self-reported assessments of competency.”
Development and Validation of an Algorithm Literacy Scale for Internet Users
Dogruel, L., Masur, P., & Joeckel, S. (2022) · Communication Methods and Measures · doi:10.1080/19312458.2021.1968361 · Cited by 177
Research works printed but not linked: 29
- 10.1177/0022243719851788 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1038/s42256-019-0020-9 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1126/science.159.3812.255.c · DOI
- Cotter Kelley, Reisdorf Bianca C. (2020), “Algorithmic Knowledge Gaps: A New Dimension of (Digital) Inequality,” International Journal of Communication, 14, 745–65.
- 10.1509/jmkr.44.3.357 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/00222429231171841 · DOI
- 10.1177/1745691616654676 · DOI
- 10.1080/1369118X.2020.1713846 · DOI
- Hayes Andrew F. (2017), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. Guilford Publications.
- 10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114720 · DOI
- 10.1007/s11747-023-00986-8 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0003055411000414 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/01655515231160028 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122558 · DOI
- 10.1080/02699930302297 · DOI · Paper page
- Latzer Michael Festic Noemi Kappeler Kiran (2021) “Awareness of Algorithmic Selection and Attitudes in Switzerland ” Report 2 from The Significance of Algorithmic Selection for Everyday Life: The Case of Switzerland SSRN https://ssrn.com/abstract=3869792.
- 10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103259 · DOI
- McCarthy John, Minsky Marvin L., Rochester Nathaniel, Shannon Claude E. (2006), “A Proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence,” AI Magazine, 27 (4), 12.
- Mosier Kathleen L., Skitka Linda J. (2018), “Human Decision Makers and Automated Decision Aids: Made for Each Other?” in Automation and Human Performance: Theory and Applications, Raja Parasuraman and Mustapha Mouloua, eds. CRC Press.
- 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02158 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jesp.2023.104464 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10462-007-9048-z · DOI
- 10.1177/14614448221138973 · DOI
- 10.1145/3287324.3287392 · DOI
- Topol Eric (2019), Deep Medicine: How Artificial Intelligence Can Make Healthcare Human Again. Hachette UK.
- 10.1177/1938965509336809 · DOI
- Wang Hongchang, Li Chunxiao, Gu Bin, Min Wei (2019), “Does AI-Based Credit Scoring Improve Financial Inclusion? Evidence from Online Payday Lending,” 40th International Conference on Information Systems, ICIS 2019 Proceedings, https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2019/blockchain_fintech/blockchain_fintech/20/.
- 10.1177/00222437211070016 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.tele.2021.101607 · DOI
Cited by
Sohn, S., Labrecque, L., Siemon, D., & Morana, S. (2025) · Journal of Retailing · doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2025.03.003 · Cited by 26
Ding, N., Chen, M., & Hu, L. (2025) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105650 · Cited by 11
Thinking Smarter, not Harder? Google NotebookLM's Misalignment Problem in Education
Albrecht-Crane, C. (2025) · Proceedings of the 43rd ACM International Conference on Design of Communication · doi:10.1145/3711670.3764628 · Cited by 4
Schneider, E., Kyriakopoulos, V., Seo, Y., Hong, N., Lee, M., & Lim, J. S. (2026) · Corporate Reputation Review · doi:10.1057/s41299-026-00254-9 · Cited by 4
Sobo, E. J., Goldberg, D. M., Hauze, S. W., & Frazee, J. P. (2026) · Annals of Anthropological Practice · doi:10.1111/napa.70029 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Tully, S. M., Longoni, C., & Appel, G.
- Venue
- Journal of Marketing
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2025-04-21
- Volume
- 89
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1-20
- ISSN
- 0022-2429
- 1547-7185
- Cited by
- 193
- References
- 11
- Language
- en
- Licence
- journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Lower Artificial Intelligence Literacy Predicts Greater AI Receptivity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/00222429251314491
- The paper
- Tully, S. M., Longoni, C., & Appel, G. (2025). Lower Artificial Intelligence Literacy Predicts Greater AI Receptivity. Journal of Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429251314491
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
