From understanding to influence: the interplay of AI literacy, self-efficacy, and trust in predicting communication students’ AI adoption and word-of-mouth

Abstract

The rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies into academic and professional practice has profoundly shaped the communication and public relations domain. However, there is limited empirical understanding of how individuals actually perceive and use these new technologies. Therefore, this article investigates Communication and Public Relations (PR) students’ perceptions of artificial intelligence (AI), specifically aiming to understand how literacy, psychological factors, and trust influence their AI word-of-mouth (WOM). We proposed a theoretical model, which we tested using a quantitative approach with SmartPLS analysis on data gathered from 402 online questionnaires administered to students across three major Romanian universities. The key findings indicate that Internet use fosters AI literacy, which subsequently enhances both AI self-efficacy and the perceived ease of AI use. Crucially, higher AI literacy leads to greater trust, promoting informed choices. While AI self-efficacy encourages appropriate reliance on the technology and positively impacts behavioral intention toward AI, higher trust surprisingly leads to lower privacy concerns. Conversely, heightened privacy concerns increase algorithm aversion, which in turn negatively impacts both behavioral intention and WOM communication about AI. We also confirm that a positive behavioral intention is a strong predictor of increased WOM communication. These findings have significant implications for academia, policymakers, and PR practitioners by highlighting the necessity of boosting AI literacy to mitigate aversion and foster responsible AI adoption among future communication professionals.

Cite this work

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

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 8 citations exist upstream.

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