ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Trust Dynamics in Financial Decision Making: Behavioral Responses to AI and Human Expert Advice Following Structural Breaks.
Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Identifying conceptual dimensions of trust in artificial intelligence from qualitative content analysis of open-ended responses.Discover artificial intelligence · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study explores the trust dynamics in financial forecasting by comparing how individuals perceive the credibility of AI and human experts during significant structural market changes. We specifically examine the impact of two types of structural breaks on trust: Additive Outliers, which represent a single yet significant anomaly, and Level Shifts, which indicate a sustained change in data patterns. Grounded in theoretical frameworks such as attribution theory, algorithm aversion, and the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), this research investigates psychological responses to AI and human advice under uncertainty. This experiment involved 157 participants, recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), who were asked to forecast stock prices under different structural break scenarios. Participants were randomly assigned to either the AI or human expert treatment group, and the experiment was conducted online. Through this controlled experiment, we find that, while initial trust levels in AI and human experts are comparable, the credibility of advice is more severely compromised following a structural break in the Level Shift condition, compared to the Additive Outlier condition. Moreover, the decline in trust is more pronounced for human experts than for AI. These findings highlight the psychological factors influencing decision making under uncertainty and offer insights into the behavioral responses to AI and human expert systems during structural market changes.
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.