What Shapes User Trust in ChatGPT? A Mixed-Methods Study of User Attributes, Trust Dimensions, Task Context, and Societal Perceptions among University Students
July 07, 2025 Β· Declared Dead Β· π arXiv.org
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Kadija Bouyzourn, Alexandra Birch
arXiv ID
2507.05046
Category
cs.HC: Human-Computer Interaction
Citations
1
Venue
arXiv.org
Last Checked
4 months ago
Abstract
This mixed-methods inquiry examined four domains that shape university students' trust in ChatGPT: user attributes, seven delineated trust dimensions, task context, and perceived societal impact. Data were collected through a survey of 115 UK undergraduate and postgraduate students and four complementary semi-structured interviews. Behavioural engagement outweighed demographics: frequent use increased trust, whereas self-reported understanding of large-language-model mechanics reduced it. Among the dimensions, perceived expertise and ethical risk were the strongest predictors of overall trust; ease of use and transparency had secondary effects, while human-likeness and reputation were non-significant. Trust was highly task-contingent; highest for coding and summarising, lowest for entertainment and citation generation, yet confidence in ChatGPT's referencing ability, despite known inaccuracies, was the single strongest correlate of global trust, indicating automation bias. Computer-science students surpassed peers only in trusting the system for proofreading and writing, suggesting technical expertise refines rather than inflates reliance. Finally, students who viewed AI's societal impact positively reported the greatest trust, whereas mixed or negative outlooks dampened confidence. These findings show that trust in ChatGPT hinges on task verifiability, perceived competence, ethical alignment and direct experience, and they underscore the need for transparency, accuracy cues and user education when deploying LLMs in academic settings.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Human-Computer Interaction
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need?
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Identifying Stable Patterns over Time for Emotion Recognition from EEG
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Questioning the AI: Informing Design Practices for Explainable AI User Experiences
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Learning for Sensor-based Human Activity Recognition: Overview, Challenges and Opportunities
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Educational data mining and learning analytics: An updated survey
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted