ArticleBMC psychology2026
Ethical cognition, AI anxiety, and attitudes toward artificial intelligence: validation of the GAAIS, AT-EAI, and AIAS in an Albanian higher-education context.
Article in BMC psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundCross-cultural psychometric evidence on instruments measuring attitudes toward artificial intelligence (AI) remains scarce in transitional higher-education settings. This study provides the first Albanian-language validation of three widely used instruments - the General Attitudes toward Artificial Intelligence Scale (GAAIS), the Attitudes toward Ethical Artificial Intelligence Scale (AT-EAI), and the AI Anxiety Scale (AIAS) - and, as a secondary exploratory aim, examines how ethical cognition and AI-related anxiety are associated with positive and negative orientations toward AI.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted with 705 students and staff at one Albanian public university (University of Shkodra). Instruments were translated and back-translated, pilot-tested, and evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Hierarchical regression models examined exploratory associations between the AT-EAI subscales (fairness, transparency, non-maleficence, privacy, responsibility), the AIAS subscales (cognitive, affective), and the two GAAIS dimensions, controlling for demographics.
resultsAll three instruments showed good factorial validity and reliability in Albanian (CFI ≥ 0.987; α range 0.74-0.91). In the exploratory regression models, non-maleficence was the only ethical dimension positively associated with positive GAAIS (β = 0.17), while privacy concerns were associated with stronger negative GAAIS (β = 0.10); these ethical effects were small in magnitude. Cognitive and affective AI anxiety showed the largest associations, both with reduced positive attitudes and increased negative attitudes, with affective anxiety strongest in the negative-attitudes model (β = 0.32).
conclusionsThe study's primary contribution is the provision of the first validated Albanian versions of the GAAIS, AT-EAI, and AIAS, which are made available in the Supplementary Appendix for use by other researchers. Within this single-institution validation sample, the associational findings further suggest, in exploratory terms, that emotional responses to AI - more than ethical evaluations - are linked to students' general attitudes. Given the cross-sectional, single-institution design and the modest magnitude of several effects, generalisation to broader Albanian higher education or to AI policy contexts should be treated with caution.
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.