SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2026
Contemporary AI attitude scale research: a systematic mapping review and bibliometric analysis.
Synthesis 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The rapid expansion of artificial intelligence (AI) has been accompanied by growing efforts to measure individuals' attitudes toward these technologies. However, existing AI attitude scales vary considerably in their theoretical foundations, dimensional structures, target populations, and application contexts, raising questions about the extent to which they represent equivalent conceptualizations of the construct. Methods: This systematic mapping review examined contemporary AI attitude scale research and mapped its thematic, intellectual, methodological, and conceptual structure. A predefined Web of Science Core Collection search identified 298 eligible AI-related psychometric scale studies published between 2022 and June 2026; within this corpus, AI attitude was the most frequently represented construct, with 51 studies forming the final analytic sample. The review integrated descriptive and conceptual synthesis with bibliometric mapping analyses, including author keyword and abstract-term co-occurrence, co-citation, and bibliographic coupling. Results: The findings showed that scale development and psychometric evaluation constitute prominent methodological themes in the literature. Co-citation analysis linked the broader technology-acceptance tradition with AI-specific approaches to attitude measurement, while bibliographic coupling revealed four interconnected contemporary research fronts involving scale refinement and contextual extension, education and generative AI, population- and domain-specific measurement, and cross-cultural validation around established scale families. Despite these overlapping knowledge bases, substantial conceptual heterogeneity was evident across instruments, including unidimensional, positive-negative, cognitive-affective-behavioral, functional, ethical, and domain-specific multidimensional conceptualizations. Discussion: Overall, the findings indicate that bibliographic and methodological commonality has not produced conceptual uniformity in AI attitude measurement. Future research should therefore prioritize explicit construct definition, conceptual fit between instruments and research purposes, measurement invariance, cross-cultural validation, and cumulative evaluation of established measures rather than assuming equivalence across scales carrying the same construct label.
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.