ArticlePloS one2026
Cognitive impairment and danger to humanity, or personal assistant and learning tool? Exploring attitudes towards ChatGPT and their predictors.
Article in PloS one, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study examines the factors shaping attitudes towards ChatGPT inclusive of personality traits, ideological orientations, AI literacy, gender, and cultural context. In Study 1 (Ntotal = 500; Nvalid = 472 Serbia), positive perceptions of ChatGPT as a learning tool and personal assistant were linked to higher AI literacy and supportive views of AI, whereas negative AI-related attitudes predicted concerns about ChatGPT's cognitive impairment and existential threats. Gender played a crucial role: among men, higher levels of right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO) predicted more negative attitudes, while among women, RWA, SDO, and Openness were associated with more positive views. Study 2 compared German (as a representative of one of the most developed countries, especially in AI development; Ntotal = 115; Nvalid = 112) and Serbian (as an example of a less AI-developed country; Ntotal = 119; Nvalid = 117) samples, revealing significant differences (e.g., Germans scored higher in AI literacy, while Serbian participants scored higher in Conscientiousness and Extraversion. We further found different and unique effects of the examined predictors on participants' AI- and ChatGPT-related attitudes across both samples, possibly driven by the above-mentioned base differences. These findings underscore a complex interplay of individual and cultural factors that drive divergent interpretations of AI's societal role, highlighting the need to consider context when assessing public acceptance of emerging technologies.
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.