Trust in AI emerges from distrust in humans: A machine learning study on decision-making guidance
November 20, 2025 Β· Declared Dead Β· π arXiv.org
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Johan SebastiΓ‘n Galindez-Acosta, Juan JosΓ© Giraldo-Huertas
arXiv ID
2511.16769
Category
cs.HC: Human-Computer Interaction
Citations
0
Venue
arXiv.org
Last Checked
4 months ago
Abstract
This study explores the dynamics of trust in artificial intelligence (AI) agents, particularly large language models (LLMs), by introducing the concept of "deferred trust", a cognitive mechanism where distrust in human agents redirects reliance toward AI perceived as more neutral or competent. Drawing on frameworks from social psychology and technology acceptance models, the research addresses gaps in user-centric factors influencing AI trust. Fifty-five undergraduate students participated in an experiment involving 30 decision-making scenarios (factual, emotional, moral), selecting from AI agents (e.g., ChatGPT), voice assistants, peers, adults, or priests as guides. Data were analyzed using K-Modes and K-Means clustering for patterns, and XGBoost models with SHAP interpretations to predict AI selection based on sociodemographic and prior trust variables. Results showed adults (35.05\%) and AI (28.29\%) as the most selected agents overall. Clustering revealed context-specific preferences: AI dominated factual scenarios, while humans prevailed in social/moral ones. Lower prior trust in human agents (priests, peers, adults) consistently predicted higher AI selection, supporting deferred trust as a compensatory transfer. Participant profiles with higher AI trust were distinguished by human distrust, lower technology use, and higher socioeconomic status. Models demonstrated consistent performance (e.g., average precision up to 0.863). Findings challenge traditional models like TAM/UTAUT, emphasizing relational and epistemic dimensions in AI trust. They highlight risks of over-reliance due to fluency effects and underscore the need for transparency to calibrate vigilance. Limitations include sample homogeneity and static scenarios; future work should incorporate diverse populations and multimodal data to refine deferred trust across contexts.
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