Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39886023›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2024

The technology acceptance model and adopter type analysis in the context of artificial intelligence.

Fabio Ibrahim, Johann-Christoph Münscher, Monika Daseking, Nils-Torge Telle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Fabio IbrahimFaculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Helmut-Schmidt-University/University of the Armed Forces, Hamburg, Germany.
Johann-Christoph MünscherFaculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Helmut-Schmidt-University/University of the Armed Forces, Hamburg, Germany.
Monika DasekingFaculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Helmut-Schmidt-University/University of the Armed Forces, Hamburg, Germany.
Nils-Torge TelleIndependent Researcher, Hamburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a transformative technology impacting various sectors of society and the economy. Understanding the factors influencing AI adoption is critical for both research and practice. This study focuses on two key objectives: (1) validating an extended version of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) in the context of AI by integrating the Big Five personality traits and AI mindset, and (2) conducting an exploratory k-prototype analysis to classify AI adopters based on demographics, AI-related attitudes, and usage patterns. Methods: A sample of Results: The psychometric analysis confirmed the validity of the extended TAM. Perceived usefulness was the strongest predictor of attitudes towards AI usage ( Discussion: The findings highlight the importance of perceived usefulness and AI mindset in shaping attitudes toward AI adoption. The clustering results provide a nuanced understanding of AI adopter types, aligning with established innovation diffusion theories. Implications for AI deployment strategies, policy-making, and future research directions are discussed.

Indexed as

AI mindsetartificial Intelligencebig fiveearly adopterlate adoptertechnology acceptance model

Identifiers

PMID39886023
PMCPMC11780378

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.