AI as decision aid or delegated agent: The effects of trust dimensions on the adoption of AI digital agents

Aman Pathak · Veena Bansal

40 citations0/0 files storedComputers in Human Behavior Artificial Humans

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Technology Adoption and User Behaviour Customer Service Quality and Loyalty AI in Service Interactions

Abstract

AI digital agents may act as decision-aid or as delegated agents. A decision-aid agent helps a user make decisions, whereas a delegated agent makes decisions on behalf of the consumer. The study determines the factors affecting the adoption intention of AI digital agents as decision aids and delegated agents. The domain of study is banking, financial services , and Insurance sector (BFSI). Due to the unique characteristics of AI digital agents, trust has been identified as an important construct in the extant literature. The study decomposed trust into social, cognitive, and affective trust. We incorporated PLS-SEM and fsQCA to examine the factors drawn from the literature. The findings from PLS-SEM suggest that perceived AI quality affects cognitive trust, perceived usefulness affects affective trust, and social trust affects cognitive and affective trust. The intention to adopt AI as a decision-aid is influenced by affective and cognitive trust. The intention to adopt AI as delegated agents is influenced by social, cognitive, and affective trust. FsQCA findings indicate that combining AI quality, perceived usefulness, and trust (social, cognitive, and affective) best explains the intention to adopt AI as a decision aid and delegated agents.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 40 citations exist upstream.

References

1989Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology 2018When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM 2019Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: guidelines for using PLSpredict 2023Opinion Paper: “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy 1995A Review of Scale Development Practices in the Study of Organizations 2021Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA): Guidelines for research practice in Information Systems and marketing 2003Cognitive and affective trust in service relationships 2000Salient Value Similarity, Social Trust, and Risk/Benefit Perception

Cited by

2025Unveiling the Complexity of Designers’ Intention to Use Generative AI in Corporate Product Design: A Grounded Theory and fsQCA 2025Consumers’ Vulnerability and E-commerce purchase behavior: A serial mediation model 2025Algorithmic Empowerment and Its Impact on Circular Economy Participation: An Empirical Study Based on Human–Machine Collaborative Decision-Making Mechanisms 2025Exploring user acceptance of physical intelligent assistants: A study on AI-powered eyewear

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.