Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Introduction Trust in artificial intelligence (AI) increasingly shapes how young people evaluate information and public issues, yet evidence from Arab contexts remains limited. This study examined the socio-technical correlates of trust in AI and its association with AI-assisted social and civic decision-making among digitally engaged youth in Egypt, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. Methods A cross-sectional online survey was conducted with 1,023 respondents aged 18–35 recruited through purposive, non-probability sampling. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), structural equation modeling (SEM), multi-group CFA, and competing full- versus partial-mediation models evaluated measurement and structural relationships. Results The partially mediated model fit significantly better than the fully mediated model, Δχ2(5) = 55.66, p < 0.001. Institutional confidence (β = 0.303), AI literacy (β = 0.281), perceived usefulness (β = 0.242), and social influence (β = 0.107) were positively associated with trust in AI, and perceived risk was negatively associated (β = −0.106; all p < 0.001). Trust was positively associated with AI-assisted decision-making (β = 0.412, p < 0.001). Significant indirect associations through trust were observed for all five antecedents, while the direct perceived-risk path to AI-assisted decision-making was nonsignificant. Multi-group CFA supported metric and practical scalar measurement invariance across the three countries. Discussion The findings support a socio-technical account of AI trust in which technological, cognitive, institutional, and social conditions jointly relate to AI-assisted decision-making, with trust functioning as a central but not exclusive pathway. Given the cross-sectional, purposive design, findings are interpreted as associations rather than causal or nationally representative effects.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ashour et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: