ArticlePloS one2023
Exploring the artificial intelligence "Trust paradox": Evidence from a survey experiment in the United States.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence, intellectual property, and human rights: mapping the legal landscape in European health systems.npj health systems · 2025Article
- Trust in Medical AI: The Case of mHealth Diabetes Apps.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Article
- The Impact of Biometric Surveillance on Reducing Violent Crime: Strategies for Apprehending Criminals While Protecting the Innocent.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- AI integration and workforce development: Exploring job autonomy and creative self-efficacy in a global context.PloS one · 2025Article
- Bridging human and machine intelligence: Reverse-engineering radiologist intentions for clinical trust and adoption.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) are poised to transform society, national defense, and the economy by increasing efficiency, precision, and safety. Yet, widespread adoption within society depends on public trust and willingness to use AI-enabled technologies. In this study, we propose the possibility of an AI "trust paradox," in which individuals' willingness to use AI-enabled technologies exceeds their level of trust in these capabilities. We conduct a two-part study to explore the trust paradox. First, we conduct a conjoint analysis, varying different attributes of AI-enabled technologies in different domains-including armed drones, general surgery, police surveillance, self-driving cars, and social media content moderation-to evaluate whether and under what conditions a trust paradox may exist. Second, we use causal mediation analysis in the context of a second survey experiment to help explain why individuals use AI-enabled technologies that they do not trust. We find strong support for the trust paradox, particularly in the area of AI-enabled police surveillance, where the levels of support for its use are both higher than other domains but also significantly exceed trust. We unpack these findings to show that several underlying beliefs help account for public attitudes of support, including the fear of missing out, optimism that future versions of the technology will be more trustworthy, a belief that the benefits of AI-enabled technologies outweigh the risks, and calculation that AI-enabled technologies yield efficiency gains. Our findings have important implications for the integration of AI-enabled technologies in multiple settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.