Cited by 126Gender and Technology in EducationTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Gender differences in artificial intelligence: the role of artificial intelligence anxiety

Open access
Russo, Claudia, Romano, Luciano, Clemente, Davide, Iacovone, Leonardo, Gladwin, Thomas Edward, Panno, Angelo·2025·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

Introduction: Artificial intelligence (AI) is having a significant impact on people's lives. Despite the benefits associated with this technological advancement, there may be gender-related inequalities in accessing and using AI systems. The present study aimed to test gender differences in factors likely to influence AI adoption, in particular, the moderating role of gender in the relationship between AI anxiety and positive attitudes toward AI. Method: Participants were 335 adults (52.2% women; mean age = 29.96, SD = 13.88) who filled in an online self-report anonymous questionnaire. To test the hypotheses, both a MANOVA and a moderation model were adopted. Results: Results revealed significant gender differences in AI adoption dimensions, with women reporting higher AI anxiety, lower positive attitudes toward AI, lower use of AI, and lower perceived knowledge of AI. A significant negative relationship was found between AI anxiety and positive attitudes toward AI. An interaction between gender and AI anxiety was found: At low levels of anxiety, women showed lower levels of positive attitudes toward AI than men, while at high levels of AI anxiety, gender differences were less evident. Discussion: These findings suggest that AI anxiety works as a “gender differences leveler.” The present study contributes to expanding knowledge about gender differences in technology, which will underpin practical interventions for reducing the gender digital gap. Limitations and future research directions are discussed.

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 · 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1559457

Cites

57 of 57 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?

  • Prior technology-acceptance research suggested that gender may shape how users evaluate new technologies, including the relative importance of perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and social influence.

    “Prior technology-acceptance research suggested that gender may shape how users evaluate new technologies, including the relative importance of perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and social influence [121].”

    From Advancing Undergraduate Student Mental Healthcare of Social Anxiety Disorder: Evaluating the Acceptance of AR-Assisted Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Through TAM-Based Constructs. (2026) · cites this paper as [121]

    The Introduction (section 1.1; no page number provided) reports gender differences in attitudes toward technology and in perceptions of how useful or complex AI systems are. The copy does not address whether gender changes the relative importance of perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and social influence in technology acceptance. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

1 of the 58 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Haines E. L. Deaux K. Lofaro N. (2016). The times they are a-changing… or are they not? A comparison of gender stereotypes, 1983–2014. Psychol. Women Q. 40, 353– 363. 10.1177/036168431663408 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Russo, C., Romano, L., Clemente, D., Iacovone, L., Gladwin, T. E., & Panno, A.
Affiliations
  • European University of Rome (IT)
  • University of Chieti-Pescara (IT)
  • Institute for Globally Distributed Open Research and Education (SE)
Corresponding author
  • Russo, Claudia
  • Panno, Angelo
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2025-05-06
Volume
16
Pages
1559457-1559457
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4410133492
Cited by
126
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 94 · 2025: 32
FWCI
227.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Technology in Education
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
AI anxiety, gender differences, attitudes toward AI, artificial intelligence adoption, technology acceptance, gender digital divide, moderating effect of gender

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