Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41266754›Full record

Trial reportScientific reports2025

Gender, knowledge, and trust in artificial intelligence: a classroom-based randomized experiment.

Antonio Dávila, Ismail El Fassi, Daniel Oyon, Nicolas Rudolf

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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.

Antonio DávilaUniversity of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Ismail El FassiUniversity of St.Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland. ismail.elfassi@unisg.ch.
Daniel OyonUniversity of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Nicolas RudolfUniversity of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly utilized to provide real-time assistance and recommendations across a wide range of tasks in both education and workplace settings, especially since the emergence of Generative AI. However, it is unclear how users perceive the trustworthiness of these tools, particularly given the publicized "hallucinations" that they may experience. We conduct a randomized field experiment in an undergraduate course setting where students perform periodic tests using a digital platform. We analyze how subject characteristics affect trust in AI versus peers' advice. Students are randomly assigned to either a treatment group receiving advice labeled as coming from an AI system or a control group receiving advice labeled as coming from human peers. Our results are in line with recent laboratory experiments documenting algorithm appreciation. However, this effect is moderated by subject characteristics: male and high-knowledge participants place significantly less weight on AI advice compared to peer advice. Notably, these trust patterns persist regardless of advice quality (correct or incorrect). Moreover, our results remain consistent over a four-week period, including after providing performance feedback during the second week, allowing subjects to make more informed trust decisions.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceKnowledgeTrustAdultFemaleHumansMaleSex FactorsStudentsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID41266754
PMCPMC12635179

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.