ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
From institutional trust to AI adoption: a trust transfer and risk perception model of AI-enabled public service acceptance in China's digital government context.
Article in Frontiers in 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
Introduction: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used in public agencies to route inquiries, screen eligibility, support caseworkers, and automate routine service encounters. Citizen acceptance of these services depends on their links to public authority, accountability, and visible opportunities for human recourse. This study examines a trust-based mechanism connecting institutional trust, risk perception, AI service trust, and behavioral intention in China's digital government context. Methods: The study combined an LLM-driven agent simulation involving 936 agents across three independent seeds, a 3 × 3 factorial scenario experiment involving 900 simulated agents, and a human-validation pilot using the same questionnaire and scenario structure. The pilot generated 189 submitted records, of which 182 were retained after attention checking. Results: In the synthetic calibration, institutional trust is positively associated with AI service trust (IT → AST β = 0.607) and negatively associated with risk perception (IT → RP β = -0.271); risk perception is negatively associated with AI service trust (RP → AST β = -0.459); and AI service trust is positively associated with behavioral intention (AST → BI β = 0.424). The same directional pattern appears in the human-validation pilot (IT → AST β = 0.357; IT → RP β = -0.240; RP → AST β = -0.513; AST → BI β = 0.650). Scenario means also align with the simulation pattern (Pearson Discussion: The findings connect confidence in government institutions with service-specific trust and indicate that perceived risk constrains acceptance of AI-enabled public services. In high-stakes automated settings, visible arrangements for human review may be necessary for AI service trust to translate into intended use. Public-sector AI acceptance is therefore shaped jointly by institutional credibility, perceived risk, and service encounter design.
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.