Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41897981›Full record

ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2026

Who Gets More Trust-AI or Humans, and Why? A Cross-Cultural Analysis of AI and Interpersonal Trust.

Hui Zhang, Yiming Jing, Ruolei Gu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Hui ZhangState Key Laboratory of Cognitive Science and Mental Health, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China.ORCID 0009-0006-8621-4975
Yiming JingState Key Laboratory of Cognitive Science and Mental Health, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China.ORCID 0000-0001-5865-6780
Ruolei GuState Key Laboratory of Cognitive Science and Mental Health, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China.ORCID 0000-0001-8722-2172

Funding

Beijing Philosophy and Social Science Foundation 24DTR063
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As artificial intelligence (AI) systems become increasingly embedded in social contexts, understanding how individuals develop trust in AI relative to humans is critical. This study investigates the relative levels of trust in AI agents (embodied and disembodied) versus human social targets (intimate, intermediate, and distant groups), the psychological mechanisms underlying these trust patterns, and the potential cross-cultural differences between China and U.S. Moderated mediation models were tested to gain insights into how deception experience may affect trust via risk and trust propensity, with perceived honesty norms moderating the mediator-to-outcome pathways. Across both cultures, a consistent trust hierarchy emerged-AI was trusted less than close others but more than distant others. It is likely that, in China, embodied AI was evaluated through interpersonal trust schemas, while in the United States, AI was treated largely as a functional tool regardless of embodiment. Together, these findings clarify both the structure and the processes of AI trust, advancing theoretical debates over whether AI trust mirrors interpersonal trust and offering practical insights for designing culturally adaptive, trustworthy AI systems.

Indexed as

AI trustcross-cultural differencesdeception experienceembodimentinterpersonal trustrisk propensitytrust propensity

Identifiers

PMID41897981
PMCPMC13024044

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.