Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 56 references

What Shapes User Trust in ChatGPT? A Mixed-Methods Study of User Attributes, Trust Dimensions, Task Context, and Societal Perceptions among University Students

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read University students trust ChatGPT when it seems expert and ethically safe, not when it seems human-like.

desk verdict A useful exploratory study with a striking automation-bias finding, but the missing measurement appendix and a sign ambiguity in the 'risk' dimension make the headline predictor ranking uninterpretable as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05046 v1 pith:F5HJKEAS submitted 2025-07-07 cs.HC

Kadija Bouyzourn , Alexandra Birch This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords ChatGPTusertrustdimensionsautomationbiastask-specificuniversitystudentsmixed-methodsAIethics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This mixed-methods study tries to establish what actually drives university students' trust in ChatGPT, using a survey of 115 UK students and four interviews. Its central claim is that trust is a calibrated, task-specific judgement rather than a general attitude: students trust ChatGPT for coding and summarising, whose outputs are easy to check, and distrust it for citation generation and entertainment, where verification is hard or stakes are unclear. Across seven trust dimensions, perceived expertise and ethical risk are the strongest predictors of overall trust; ease of use and transparency matter secondarily, while human-likeness and reputation do not predict trust. The paper also argues that direct experience outweighs demographics: frequent use raises trust, while self-reported understanding of how LLMs work lowers it. The significance, if true, is that trust in generative AI can be shaped by task design, transparency features, and user education rather than by making systems more human-like.

What carries the argument

The central object is the seven-dimension trust framework adopted from prior work, which decomposes trust into expertise, predictability, transparency, human-likeness, ease of use, ethical risk, and reputation; the study measures each with composite Likert scales and enters all seven in a regression predicting overall trust. The second load-bearing mechanism is task verifiability: users trust outputs they can check, such as code and summaries, and withhold trust where output is hard to verify or high-stakes, such as references and entertainment. The argument runs through these two devices plus an automation-bias lens, in which fluent, confident output is mistaken for factual reliability, shown by citation confidence being the strongest correlate of global trust despite documented inaccuracy.

What would settle it

Give readers the full item texts and reliability statistics from the missing appendix and run a confirmatory factor analysis on the seven composite scales; if the items do not separate into seven internally consistent dimensions, the regression ranking of expertise and ethical risk as strongest predictors collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery the paper argues for is that student trust in ChatGPT is primarily a function of task verifiability, perceived competence, ethical risk judgement, and hands-on experience. In the regression on all seven trust dimensions, perceived expertise and ethical risk carry the strongest weight, with ease of use and transparency as secondary predictors; human-likeness and reputation are non-significant. Trust is highest for summarising and coding and lowest for entertainment and sourcing references, yet confidence in ChatGPT's referencing ability is the single strongest correlate of overall trust even though the paper notes those citations are often invented, a pattern the authors read as automation bias. Behaviourally, frequent use predicts higher trust while self-reported technical understanding predicts lower trust, and computer-science students only exceed other students in trusting the system for proofreading and writing. The paper takes these results to show that trust is learned through interaction and calibrated by task demands, not conferred by anthropomorphism or reputation.

Load-bearing premise

The whole ranking of trust dimensions relies on the unpublished questionnaire items actually measuring the seven dimensions they claim to measure, with the reverse-coded risk items scored correctly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Designers who want appropriate trust should invest in competence signals, transparency, and accuracy cues rather than human-like personas.
  • Task-level trust ratings imply that LLM features should make verifiability visible: code and summary outputs earn trust, while citation generation needs disclaimers or verification tools.
  • Because self-reported technical understanding lowers trust, AI-literacy education is a plausible lever for calibrating trust and countering automation bias.
  • Because frequent use raises trust, repeated positive interactions may build trust, though the paper notes the relationship between trust and use could be bidirectional.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If task verifiability is the underlying mechanism, then interface changes such as showing confidence scores or adding one-click source verification should shift trust in predictable ways; this is a testable design extension the paper does not itself propose.
  • The negative link between technical understanding and trust may be partly a selection effect rather than a causal effect of knowledge; a longitudinal AI-literacy course with a control group would separate education from pre-existing disposition.
  • The automation-bias reading implies that students who express high confidence in ChatGPT's referencing may check citations least; logging real citation-checking behaviour would test whether stated trust tracks actual verification.
  • Because the sample is a single UK university with a computer-science-heavy skew, the relative weights of the seven dimensions are likely to shift in other populations, and the framework needs cross-validation before being treated as a general model.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports a mixed-methods study of trust in ChatGPT among 115 UK university students, combining a survey with four semi-structured interviews. It addresses four research questions: user attributes, seven trust dimensions (expertise, predictability, transparency, human-likeness, ease of use, risk, reputation), task-specific trust, and perceived societal impact. The main quantitative findings are that usage frequency is positively associated with trust while self-reported understanding of LLM mechanics is negatively associated; that perceived expertise and risk are the strongest regression predictors of overall trust; that trust is highest for summarising and coding and lowest for entertainment and citation generation; and that positive societal-impact perceptions are associated with higher trust. The qualitative interviews are used to illustrate and contextualise these patterns. The central claim, as stated in the abstract, is that trust in ChatGPT among university students is primarily shaped by hands-on experience, perceived competence, ethical-risk judgement, and task verififiability.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper makes a useful empirical contribution to the HCI and AI-trust literature by providing a task-level, mixed-methods account of trust in a widely used LLM, and by connecting the seven-dimension framework of Choudhury and Shamszare to a student population. The explicit RQ structure, the use of non-parametric tests appropriate to Likert data, and the inclusion of detailed correlation and regression tables are strengths, as is the Discussion's acknowledgement that the trust-use relationship may be bidirectional. However, the manuscript is not currently verifiable in its headline claims because the questionnaire items, reverse-coding rules, and reliability statistics for the trust-dimension composites are deferred to an appendix that is not included in the arXiv text, and because the direction of the Risk dimension is internally inconsistent. The abstract also overstates the evidence for 'secondary effects' of ease of use and transparency. These issues are fixable, but they are load-bearing for the paper's central ranking of trust dimensions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2.1 / Section 3.2 / Appendix A] The composite trust-dimension scales, their item wording, reverse-coding rules, and reliability statistics are described only as 'provided in Appendix A', which is not included in the arXiv manuscript. All RQ2 results, including the headline ranking of expertise and risk as the strongest predictors in Table 5, rest on these composites actually measuring the intended constructs. The authors must supply Appendix A (or report the items and Cronbach's alpha in the main text) so that readers can verify the scaling, the reverse-coding, and the reliability of each dimension.
  2. [Figure 2 / Table 5 / Section 4 (Trust Dimensions)] The direction of the Risk dimension is internally contradictory. In Figure 2, Risk correlates positively with Ease of Use (r = 0.43, p = .047) and with the other positive trust dimensions, which is coherent only if a high Risk score means low perceived risk / high ethical compliance. Yet Section 4 states 'Ease of use was inversely related to perceived risk', which treats a high Risk score as high perceived risk, and Table 5 reports a positive Risk coefficient in the regression predicting overall trust. Without the item wording and the reverse-coding direction, the reader cannot determine whether the reported association means 'more concern about risk predicts more trust' or 'better ethical compliance predicts more trust'. If the Risk composite were scored in the opposite direction, the headline ranking of expertise and ethical risk would invert or disappear. This needs to be resolved explicitly.
  3. [Abstract / Table 5] The abstract states that ease of use and transparency had 'secondary effects' on overall trust, but Table 5 reports p = .311 for ease of use and p = .123 for transparency, so neither is statistically significant in the multiple regression. The text should either describe these dimensions as non-significant predictors in the regression while noting their significant bivariate correlations in Table 4, or support the 'secondary effects' claim with an appropriate analysis such as relative-importance or dominance analysis.
  4. [Section 3.1 / Section 4 (Factors Influencing User Trust)] The causal wording 'frequent use increased trust' is not supported by the cross-sectional survey design. The Discussion itself acknowledges a possible reciprocal relationship ('It remains conceivable... that trust itself motivates continued use'), which is inconsistent with the causal language used in the abstract and in Section 3.1. Replace causal formulations with associational wording throughout, or explicitly frame the causal interpretation as a hypothesis requiring longitudinal or experimental data.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.2.1 / Appendix B] The questionnaire is said to be provided in Appendix B, but Appendix B is also not included in the arXiv text. Please include both appendices or state where they can be obtained.
  2. [Figure 2 caption] The caption says 'Spearman correlation matrix' but the diagonal entries are labelled 'Pearson r' and p-values are shown as p=0.000; use p < .001 and reconcile the correlation-type label.
  3. [Section 3.4] The sentence beginning 'Pairwise Dunn tests' is incomplete and is immediately repeated in the following paragraph; the duplicate sentence should be removed and the first completed.
  4. [Section 3.3 / Table 8] The task label 'Editing' in Table 8 should be consistent with 'Proofreading or editing' used in Figure 4 and elsewhere.
  5. [Section 3.1 / Table 2] The variable 'LLM understanding' is self-reported rather than objectively measured; the text should consistently describe it as perceived understanding to avoid overclaiming.
  6. [Table 5 / Figure 2] Because several predictors are strongly correlated (e.g., Expertise and Predictability, r = 0.74), the regression would benefit from reporting variance inflation factors or standardised coefficients to show the stability of the coefficient ranking.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the regression and correlation results are fitted to observed survey responses, with the outcome measured independently of the predictor composites; no claim reduces by construction to its inputs.

full rationale

This is an empirical survey study, not a formal derivation, and I found no step in which an output is defined in terms of its own input. The seven trust dimensions are operationalized from Choudhury and Shamszare (2023), an external prior framework, not from the authors' own equations. Overall trust is a separately measured Likert rating, while the dimension composites are averaged item scores; the multiple regression in Table 5 therefore relates distinct measured variables rather than reproducing a fitted quantity under a new name. No parameter is fitted to the target outcome and then reported as a prediction, and no author-overlapping citation is used to force the choice of framework or to forbid alternatives. The missing Appendix A, which would document item wording, reverse coding, and reliability, is a transparency and construct-validity concern, and the contradictory interpretation of the risk dimension's sign in the Discussion is a reporting/interpretation problem, but neither makes the analysis circular. The abstract's characterization of ease of use and transparency as having 'secondary effects' despite p = .311 and p = .123 is an overstatement relative to the paper's own table, but that is an accuracy issue, not a derivation loop. The central claims are statistically contingent on the observed data and could have come out differently, so no circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The headline claims depend on three classes of assumptions: that self-report Likert composites validly measure the seven trust dimensions; that a one-time cross-sectional sample supports directional statements about what shapes trust; and that a single-university convenience sample with 77 computer science students represents university students. The hand-chosen grouping thresholds for usage frequency and LLM understanding are the main free choices.

free parameters (2)
  • Usage frequency split threshold = 'About once per week or less' vs 'more than once per week'
    Hand-chosen cut used to define frequent vs infrequent users; the significant effects in Tables 2, 3 and 7 depend on this split.
  • LLM understanding grouping = 'Not/uncertain' vs 'Understands'
    Hand-chosen split of self-reported understanding; the significant negative association in Table 2 and Table 3 depends on this grouping.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Self-reported Likert ratings of composite trust dimensions are valid measures of the underlying constructs (expertise, predictability, transparency, human-likeness, ease of use, risk, reputation).
    All of RQ2 depends on item wording and reverse-coding described only in missing Appendix A; without evidence of construct validity the dimensions may not measure what they claim.
  • domain assumption Cross-sectional survey responses can support directional statements about what 'shapes' or 'increases' trust.
    Data were collected at one time point; the paper uses causal verbs ('frequent use increased trust', 'understanding reduced it') while acknowledging possible reciprocal relation only for usage.
  • domain assumption The convenience sample of 115 students, 77 from computer science at a single UK university, can represent university students broadly.
    Recruitment through course announcements and social media at University of Edinburgh; findings are generalized to university students in the abstract and discussion.
  • standard math Standard statistical tests (Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis, ordinal logistic regression, multiple linear regression) are appropriate for the Likert-scale data and their assumptions are met.
    The paper does not report distributional checks or regression diagnostics, but relies on these tests for all inferential claims.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of What Shapes User Trust in ChatGPT? A Mixed-Methods Study of User Attributes, Trust Dimensions, Task Context, and Societal Perceptions among University Students." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F5HJKEAS

@misc{pith2026250705046,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: What Shapes User Trust in ChatGPT? A Mixed-Methods Study of User Attributes, Trust Dimensions, Task Context, and Societal Perceptions among University Students},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F5HJKEAS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05046}
}
read the original abstract

This mixed-methods inquiry examined four domains that shape university students' trust in ChatGPT: user attributes, seven delineated trust dimensions, task context, and perceived societal impact. Data were collected through a survey of 115 UK undergraduate and postgraduate students and four complementary semi-structured interviews. Behavioural engagement outweighed demographics: frequent use increased trust, whereas self-reported understanding of large-language-model mechanics reduced it. Among the dimensions, perceived expertise and ethical risk were the strongest predictors of overall trust; ease of use and transparency had secondary effects, while human-likeness and reputation were non-significant. Trust was highly task-contingent; highest for coding and summarising, lowest for entertainment and citation generation, yet confidence in ChatGPT's referencing ability, despite known inaccuracies, was the single strongest correlate of global trust, indicating automation bias. Computer-science students surpassed peers only in trusting the system for proofreading and writing, suggesting technical expertise refines rather than inflates reliance. Finally, students who viewed AI's societal impact positively reported the greatest trust, whereas mixed or negative outlooks dampened confidence. These findings show that trust in ChatGPT hinges on task verifiability, perceived competence, ethical alignment and direct experience, and they underscore the need for transparency, accuracy cues and user education when deploying LLMs in academic settings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.05046 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Distribution of trust scores for ChatGPT (left) and LLMs (right). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Spearman correlation matrix among trust dimensions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Mean trust-dimension scores by field of study. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Frequency of ChatGPT use across task types (multiple responses allowed). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mean trust in ChatGPT for each task type (1 = not at all, 5 = completely). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Most frequently cited concerns about AI. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    X. Shen, Z. Chen, M. Backes, and Y. Zhang. In chatgpt we trust? measuring and characterizing the reliability of chatgpt (version 2). https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2304.08979, 2023. arXiv:2304.08979

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.08979 2023

  2. [2]

    D. W. Yoo, H. Woo, S. R. Pendse, N. Y. Lu, M. L. Birnbaum, G. D. Abowd, and M. De Choud- hury. Missed opportunities for human-centered ai research: Understanding stakeholder collab- oration in mental health ai research. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 8(CSCW1):1–24, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    K. A. Hoff and M. Bashir. Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society , 57(3):407–434, 2015

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    M. Benk, S. Kerstan, F. Von Wangenheim, and A. Ferrario. Twenty-four years of empirical research on trust in ai: A bibliometric review of trends, overlooked issues, and future directions. AI & SOCIETY , 40(4):2083–2106, 2025. 21

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    S. W. T. Ng and R. Zhang. Trust in ai chatbots: A systematic review. Telematics and Informatics, 97:102240, 2025

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Capel and M

    T. Capel and M. Brereton. What is human-centered about human-centered ai? a map of the research landscape. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages 1–23, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    R. A. Acheampong and F. Cugurullo. Capturing the behavioural determinants behind the adoption of autonomous vehicles: Conceptual frameworks and measurement models to predict public transport, sharing and ownership trends of self-driving cars. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour , 62:349–375, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    I. Ajzen. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2):179–211, 1991

    work page 1991

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Y. Fu, Z. Weng, and J. Wang. Examining ai use in educational contexts: A scoping meta- review and bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education , 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Ramirez, D

    J. Ramirez, D. Obenza, and R. Cuarte. Ai trust and attitude towards ai of university students. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Higher Education , 1(1):22–36, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Eiband, H

    M. Eiband, H. Schneider, M. Bilandzic, J. Fazekas-Con, M. Haug, and H. Hussmann. Bring- ing transparency design into practice. In 23rd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, pages 211–223, 2018

    2018

  4. [12]

    M. T. Dzindolet, S. A. Peterson, R. A. Pomranky, L. G. Pierce, and H. P. Beck. The role of trust in automation reliance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies , 58(6):697– 718, 2003

    2003

  5. [13]

    Zerilli, U

    J. Zerilli, U. Bhatt, and A. Weller. How transparency modulates trust in artificial intelligence. Patterns, 3(4):100455, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Katsantonis and I

    A. Katsantonis and I. G. Katsantonis. University students’ attitudes toward artificial intel- ligence: An exploratory study of the cognitive, emotional, and behavioural dimensions of ai attitudes. Education Sciences, 14(9):988, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Delcker, J

    J. Delcker, J. Heil, D. Ifenthaler, S. Seufert, and L. Spirgi. First-year students ai-competence as a predictor for intended and de facto use of ai-tools for supporting learning processes in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education ...

    2024

  8. [16]

    T. A. Bach, A. Khan, H. Hallock, G. Beltr˜ ao, and S. Sousa. A systematic literature review of user trust in ai-enabled systems: An hci perspective. International Journal of Human– Computer Interaction, 40(5):1251–1266, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Schwartz, A

    R. Schwartz, A. Vassilev, K. Greene, L. Perine, A. Burt, and P. Hall. Towards a standard for identifying and managing bias in artificial intelligence. Technical Report NIST SP 1270, National Institute of Standards and Technology (U.S.), 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Floridi, J

    L. Floridi, J. Cowls, M. Beltrametti, R. Chatila, P. Chazerand, V. Dignum, C. Luetge, R. Madelin, U. Pagallo, F. Rossi, B. Schafer, P. Valcke, and E. Vayena. Ai4people—an ethical 22 framework for a good ai society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds a...

    2018

  11. [19]

    Wanner, L.-V

    J. Wanner, L.-V. Herm, K. Heinrich, and C. Janiesch. The effect of transparency and trust on intelligent system acceptance: Evidence from a user-based study. Electronic Markets , 32(4):2079–2102, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    Lukyanenko, W

    R. Lukyanenko, W. Maass, and V. C. Storey. Trust in artificial intelligence: From a founda- tional trust framework to emerging research opportunities. Electronic Markets, 32(4):1993– 2020, 2022

    1993

  13. [21]

    B. M. Henrique and E. Santos. Trust in artificial intelligence: Literature review and main path analysis. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans , 2(1):100043, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Y. Shen, L. Heacock, J. Elias, K. D. Hentel, B. Reig, G. Shih, and L. Moy. Chatgpt and other large language models are double-edged swords. Radiology, 307(2):e230163, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    R. C. Mayer, J. H. Davis, and F. D. Schoorman. An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review , 20(3):709, 1995

    1995

  16. [24]

    N. Luhmann. Trust and Power . Polity, 2017. English edition

    2017

  17. [25]

    Gambetta, editor

    D. Gambetta, editor. Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations . Basil Blackwell, 1988

    1988

  18. [26]

    Alvarado

    R. Alvarado. What kind of trust does ai deserve, if any? AI and Ethics , 3(4):1169–1183, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    J. D. Lee and K. A. See. Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society , 46(1):50–80, 2004

    2004

  20. [28]

    Axelrod and W

    R. Axelrod and W. D. Hamilton. The evolution of cooperation. Science, 211(4489):1390–1396, 1981

    1981

  21. [29]

    Artificial intelligence risk management framework (ai rmf 1.0)

    National Institute of Standards and Technology (US). Artificial intelligence risk management framework (ai rmf 1.0). Technical Report NIST AI 100-1, National Institute of Standards and Technology (U.S.), 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    X. J. Yang, C. D. Wickens, and K. H¨ oltt¨ a-Otto. How users adjust trust in automation: Contrast effect and hindsight bias. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, volume 60, pages 196–200, 2016

    2016

  23. [31]

    X. J. Yang, C. Schemanske, and C. Searle. Toward quantifying trust dynamics: How people adjust their trust after moment-to-moment interaction with automation. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society , 65(5):862–878, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Ajzen and M

    I. Ajzen and M. Fishbein. A bayesian analysis of attribution processes. Psychological Bulletin, 82(2):261–277, 1975

    1975

  25. [33]

    Foehr and C

    J. Foehr and C. C. Germelmann. Alexa, can i trust you? exploring consumer paths to trust in smart voice-interaction technologies. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research , 5(2):181–205, 2020. 23

    2020

  26. [34]

    A. C. Elkins and D. C. Derrick. The sound of trust: Voice as a measurement of trust during interactions with embodied conversational agents. Group Decision and Negotiation, 22(5):897– 913, 2013

    2013

  27. [35]

    Klumpp and H

    M. Klumpp and H. Zijm. Logistics innovation and social sustainability: How to prevent an artificial divide in human–computer interaction. Journal of Business Logistics , 40(3):265–278, 2019

    2019

  28. [36]

    Rowley and F

    J. Rowley and F. Johnson. Understanding trust formation in digital information sources: The case of wikipedia. Journal of Information Science , 39(4):494–508, 2013

    2013

  29. [37]

    Choudhury and H

    A. Choudhury and H. Shamszare. Investigating the impact of user trust on the adoption and use of chatgpt: Survey analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research , 25:e47184, 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    Rieger, H

    T. Rieger, H. Schindler, L. Onnasch, and E. Roesler. Explaining ai weaknesses improves human–ai performance in a dynamic control task. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 199:103505, 2025

    2025

  31. [39]

    Schmidt, F

    P. Schmidt, F. Biessmann, and T. Teubner. Transparency and trust in artificial intelligence systems. Journal of Decision Systems , 29(4):260–278, 2020

    2020

  32. [40]

    B. J. Dietvorst and S. Bharti. People reject algorithms in uncertain decision domains because they have diminishing sensitivity to forecasting error. Psychological Science, 31(10):1302–1314, 2020

    2020

  33. [41]

    Ehsan and M

    U. Ehsan and M. O. Riedl. Human-centered explainable ai: Towards a reflective so- ciotechnical approach (version 2). https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2002.01092, 2020. arXiv:2002.01092

    2002 doi arXiv

  34. [42]

    Artificial intelligence risk management frame- work: Generative artificial intelligence profile (nist ai 600-1)

    National Institute of Standards and Technology. Artificial intelligence risk management frame- work: Generative artificial intelligence profile (nist ai 600-1). Technical Report NIST AI 600-1, National Institute of Standards and Technology (U.S.), 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    C. B. Nordheim, A. Følstad, and C. A. Bjørkli. An initial model of trust in chatbots for customer service—findings from a questionnaire study. Interacting with Computers, 31(3):317– 335, 2019

    2019

  36. [44]

    Manzey, J

    D. Manzey, J. Reichenbach, and L. Onnasch. Human performance consequences of automated decision aids: The impact of degree of automation and system experience. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making , 6(1):57–87, 2012

    2012

  37. [45]

    B. M. Muir. Trust between humans and machines, and the design of decision aids.International Journal of Man-Machine Studies , 27(5–6):527–539, 1987

    1987

  38. [46]

    Madhavan and D

    P. Madhavan and D. A. Wiegmann. Effects of information source, pedigree, and reliability on operator interaction with decision support systems. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society , 49(5):773–785, 2007

    2007

  39. [47]

    Almaraz-L´ opez, F

    C. Almaraz-L´ opez, F. Almaraz-Men´ endez, and C. L´ opez-Esteban. Comparative study of the attitudes and perceptions of university students in business administration and management and in education toward artificial intelligence. Education Sciences, 13(6):609, 2023. 24

    2023

  40. [48]

    Zerilli, A

    J. Zerilli, A. Knott, J. Maclaurin, and C. Gavaghan. Transparency in algorithmic and human decision-making: Is there a double standard? Philosophy & Technology, 32(4):661–683, 2019

    2019

  41. [49]

    T. H. Davenport and R. Ronanki. Artificial intelligence for the real world, 2018. Retrieved 8 June 2024 from https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2018/01/09/ hbr-artificial-intelligence-for-the-real-world.html

    2018

  42. [50]

    R. Binns. Fairness in machine learning: Lessons from political philosophy. https://doi.org/ 10.48550/ARXIV.1712.03586, 2017. arXiv:1712.03586

    2017 doi arXiv

  43. [51]

    Parasuraman and D

    R. Parasuraman and D. H. Manzey. Complacency and bias in human use of automation: An attentional integration. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 52(3):381–410, 2010

    2010

  44. [52]

    ETHICS GUIDELINES FOR TRUSTWORTHY AI [high-level ex- pert group on artificial intelligence]

    European Commission. ETHICS GUIDELINES FOR TRUSTWORTHY AI [high-level ex- pert group on artificial intelligence]. https://www.aepd.es/sites/default/files/2019-12/ ai-ethics-guidelines.pdf, 2019

    2019

  45. [53]

    D. G. Grant, J. Behrends, and J. Basl. What we owe to decision-subjects: Beyond transparency and explanation in automated decision-making. Philosophical Studies, 182(1):55–85, 2025

    2025

  46. [54]

    Russo, E

    F. Russo, E. Schliesser, and J. Wagemans. Connecting ethics and epistemology of ai. AI & SOCIETY, 39(4):1585–1603, 2024

    2024

  47. [55]

    Shneiderman

    B. Shneiderman. Human-Centered AI. Oxford University Press Oxford, 1st edition, 2022

    2022

  48. [56]

    Goddard, A

    K. Goddard, A. Roudsari, and J. C. Wyatt. Automation bias: A systematic review of fre- quency, effect mediators, and mitigators. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Asso- ciation, 19(1):121–127, 2012. 25

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.