ArticleScientific reports2025
The effectiveness of explainable AI on human factors in trust models.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Trust and interaction design in AI-enabled systems: a systematic literature review.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Pooled it
- A Double-Edged Algorithm Attitude: How Appreciation and Aversion Shape Students' AI Learning Anxiety in Higher Education.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Gauging support for autonomous delivery drones powered by artificial intelligence: A public survey in Singapore.PloS one · 2026Article
- Beyond the algorithm: rethinking the network account of trustworthy ai through lexical threshold-based multidimensional utility analysis.AI & society · 2026Article
- Design and application of emotion-oriented play-learning tools for children with autism: a cross-cultural qualitative study of parents and teachers in China and Malaysia.Frontiers in psychology · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Explainable AI has garnered significant traction in science communication research. Prior empirical studies have firmly established that explainable AI communication could improve trust in AI and that trust in AI engineers was argued to be an under-explored dimension of trust. In this vein, trust in AI engineers was also found to be a factor in determining public perceptions and acceptance. Thus, a key question emerges: Can explainable AI improve trust in AI engineers? In this study, we set out to investigate the effects of explainability perception on trust in AI engineers, while accounting for trust in AI system. More concretely, through a public opinion survey in Singapore (N = 1,002), structural equation modelling analyses revealed that perceived explainability significantly shaped all trust in AI engineers' dimensions (i.e., ability, benevolence, and integrity). Results also revealed that trust in the ability of AI engineers subsequently shaped people's attitude and intention to use various types of autonomous passenger drones (i.e., tourism/daily commute/cross-country/city travel). Several serial mediation pathways through trust in ability and attitude were identified between explainability perception and use intention. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
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.