ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Who is more trustworthy? The influence mechanism of AI vs. human doctor triage on user trust: testing the mediating effect of psychological distance, and a multiple moderating effects analysis.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. 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.
- Artificial Intelligence in Prehospital Tele-Emergency Medicine: A Survey of Acceptance and Attitudes.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose/significance: To optimize smart healthcare services and advance the sustainable deployment of AI in medical triage, this study investigates differences in user trust between AI and human medical triage doctors and the underlying psychological mechanisms. Methods/procedures: Four online experiments were conducted using a between-group design to systematically manipulate the medical triage doctors (AI vs. human), degree of anthropomorphism (high vs. low), task sensitivity (high vs. low), and AI technology adoption level (high vs. low). Participants were recruited online to view medical triage engagement screenshots, and respond to measures assessing perceived psychological distance, anthropomorphism, task sensitivity, AI technology adoption level, and user trust. Process macros were used to test the mediation and moderation effects. Results/conclusions: The study found that (1) participants placed greater trust in human than in AI medical triage doctors; (2) psychological distance played a partial mediating role; (3) a high degree of anthropomorphism effectively reduced the psychological distance between participants and AI medical triage doctors; (4) in low task sensitivity scenarios, there was no significant difference in psychological distance from high-anthropomorphism AI and human medical triage doctors, and both were perceived as closer than low-anthropomorphism AI medical triage doctors. In high task sensitivity scenarios, psychological distance was closest for human medical triage doctors, followed by high-anthropomorphism AI medical triage doctors, and farthest for low-anthropomorphism AI medical triage doctors; and (5) high AI technology adoption level diminished the trust disparity between AI and human medical triage doctors; however, participants still exhibited a higher level of trust in human medical triage doctors. These results emphasize the importance of considering psychological distance in AI healthcare trust research, revealing the task reliance of anthropomorphism. The study also develops a comprehensive trust model that incorporates various moderating influences.
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.