ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Construction and validation of the Emotional Trust in Artificial Intelligence Scale (CEIA).
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and psychometric evaluation of the AI emotional engagement scale.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Development and validation of the AI-assisted psychoemotional regulation scale (ERP-IA-6).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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Emotional trust in Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become a crucial component of human-AI interaction, especially in academia, where generative systems are used for academic, communicational, and socio-emotional purposes. While research has advanced in cognitive trust, there is a lack of validated instruments that rigorously assess the affective dimension of trust, which involves processes of perceived authenticity, emotional validation, affective recognition, and the establishment of symbolic bonds with artificial agents. Objective: To develop and psychometrically validate the Emotional Confidence in Artificial Intelligence Scale (CEIA) in university students, examining its factor structure, reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, as well as its measurement invariance by sex. Methods: Six hundred and fibe Peruvian university students, aged 16 to 88 years (M = 22.93, SD = 7.35), participated in the study. Item distributions, item-total correlations, and descriptive statistics were analyzed. Internal structure was assessed using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) with polychoric correlations and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Reliability was estimated using Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega. Convergent and discriminant validity were examined using AVE, CR, and HTMT. Sex invariance was assessed using multigroup CFA with the WLSMV estimator. Results: The EFA supported a multidimensional structure consistent with the theoretical model. The CFA confirmed a four-factor solution-Perceived Authenticity, Emotional Validation, Affective Recognition, and Symbolic Bonding-with adequate fit indices (CFI = 0.944; TLI = 0.937; RMSEA = 0.073; SRMR = 0.033). The dimensions showed high internal consistency (α = 0.91-0.94; ω = 0.91-0.94) and satisfactory evidence of convergent and discriminant validity. Invariance analysis demonstrated metric invariance and partial scalar invariance between men and women. Conclusion: The CEIA is a valid, reliable, and partially sex-invariant instrument for assessing emotional trust in AI among university students. It constitutes a robust tool for research, technological design, and the ethical development of AI systems with affective capabilities.
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.