IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/aoe/wpaper/2502.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The social embeddedness of trust in AI: How existing trust relations to decision-makers and institutions influence trust in AI decision aids for public administration

Author

Listed:
  • Tamara Schnell

    (Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, Institute for Social Sciences, Working group “Organiza-tion and Innovation”, Oldenburg)

  • Ricarda Schmidt-Scheele

    (Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, Institute for Social Sciences, Working group “Organiza-tion and Innovation”, Oldenburg)

Abstract

AI decision aids are increasingly adopted in public administration to support complex decisions tra-ditionally carried out by employees of public authorities. While prior research has emphasized deci-sion-makers’ trust in AI, less attention has been paid to stakeholders who are exposed to and af-fected by these emerging AI-supported decision-making processes and outcomes. In such con-texts, it is not only the AI itself – its process, performance, and purpose – that is assessed for trustworthiness, but also existing constellations of decision-makers and institutions that govern decision-making. We argue that trust in AI is socially embedded. Drawing on sociological theories of trust, we propose a framework that conceptualizes trust in AI decision aids as shaped by existing trust relations with decision-makers and institutions involved in decision-making – the ‘shadow of the past’. To explore this, we examine a case study of an AI-augmented geographic information system (AI-GIS) developed to support spatial planning for onshore wind energy in the course of sustainably energy transition dynamics in Germany. Based on 38 interviews with stakeholders from seven groups involved in spatial planning and wind energy development, we analyze initial (mis)trust in the AI-GIS. Using a combination of qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and qualitative content analysis, we identify four distinct configurations that condition stakeholders’ (mis)trust. Each re-flects a unique interplay of interpersonal and institutional trust relations. The study offers a more nuanced understanding of trust in AI as a relational, context-dependent phenomenon, highlighting the relevance of institutions and existing trust relations for understanding and guiding AI adoption. It therefore directly contributes to the literature on sustainability transitions and their place-specific dynamics. AI systems are considered viable technical solutions for the transformation of energy, water, or food systems. Accordingly, trust in these AI systems needs to be understood as highly context-dependent: Trust is developed and experienced within specific institutional set-tings, regulatory cultures, and histories of technology adoption. Hence, our paper di-rects attention to who trusts what AI, where, and under what institutional arrangements and urges this to be a central question in the sustainability transitions literature.

Suggested Citation

  • Tamara Schnell & Ricarda Schmidt-Scheele, 2025. "The social embeddedness of trust in AI: How existing trust relations to decision-makers and institutions influence trust in AI decision aids for public administration," GEIST - Geography of Innovation and Sustainability Transitions 2025(02), GEIST Working Paper Series.
  • Handle: RePEc:aoe:wpaper:2502
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.geist-wp.com/papers/geist_wp_2502.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Capestro, Mauro & Rizzo, Cristian & Kliestik, Tomas & Peluso, Alessandro M. & Pino, Giovanni, 2024. "Enabling digital technologies adoption in industrial districts: The key role of trust and knowledge sharing," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    2. Yulia Sullivan & Marc Bourmont & Mary Dunaway, 2022. "Appraisals of harms and injustice trigger an eerie feeling that decreases trust in artificial intelligence systems," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 308(1), pages 525-548, January.
    3. Nahar, Sharmin, 2024. "Modeling the effects of artificial intelligence (AI)-based innovation on sustainable development goals (SDGs): Applying a system dynamics perspective in a cross-country setting," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    4. Omrani, Nessrine & Rivieccio, Giorgia & Fiore, Ugo & Schiavone, Francesco & Agreda, Sergio Garcia, 2022. "To trust or not to trust? An assessment of trust in AI-based systems: Concerns, ethics and contexts," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    5. Lea Fuenfschilling, 2019. "An institutional perspective on sustainability transitions," Chapters, in: Frank Boons & Andrew McMeekin (ed.), Handbook of Sustainable Innovation, chapter 12, pages 219-236, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Luca Grilli & Sergio Mariotti & Riccardo Marzano, 2024. "Artificial intelligence and shapeshifting capitalism," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 303-318, April.
    7. Dominika Latusek & Karen S. Cook, 2012. "Trust in Transitions," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(4), pages 512-525, November.
    8. Cabiddu, Francesca & Moi, Ludovica & Patriotta, Gerardo & Allen, David G., 2022. "Why do users trust algorithms? A review and conceptualization of initial trust and trust over time," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 685-706.
    9. Reinhard Bachmann, 2011. "At the crossroads: Future directions in trust research," Journal of Trust Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(2), pages 203-213, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Latusek, Dominika & Vlaar, Paul W.L., 2018. "Uncertainty in interorganizational collaboration and the dynamics of trust: A qualitative study," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 12-27.
    2. Martin Mathews & Peter Stokes, 2013. "The creation of trust: the interplay of rationality, institutions and exchange," Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(9-10), pages 845-866, December.
    3. Joachim Åström, 2020. "Participatory Urban Planning: What Would Make Planners Trust the Citizens?," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(2), pages 84-93.
    4. Song, Yanwu & Niu, Niu & Song, Xinyi & Zhang, Bin, 2024. "Decoding the influence of servitization on green transformation in manufacturing firms: The moderating effect of artificial intelligence," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    5. Chen, Jiangtao & Cai, Wenyu & Luo, Jiamei & Mao, Hongyi, 2025. "How does digital trust boost open innovation? Evidence from a mixed approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    6. Alejandro Cataldo & Natalia Bravo-Adasme & Juan Riquelme & Ariela Vásquez & Sebastián Rojas & Mario Arias-Oliva, 2025. "Multidimensional Poverty as a Determinant of Techno-Distress in Online Education: Evidence from the Post-Pandemic Era," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 22(7), pages 1-25, June.
    7. Immacolata Di Napoli & Pasquale Dolce & Caterina Arcidiacono, 2019. "Community Trust: A Social Indicator Related to Community Engagement," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 145(2), pages 551-579, September.
    8. Yuan, Yun-Peng & Tan, Garry Wei-Han & Ooi, Keng-Boon, 2025. "What shapes mobile fintech consumers' post-adoption experience? A multi-analytical PLS-ANN-fsQCA perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    9. Fu, Tong & Qiu, Zhaoxuan & Yang, Xiangyang & Li, Zijun, 2024. "The impact of artificial intelligence on green technology cycles in China," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    10. James K. C. Chen & Thitima Sriphon, 2022. "Authentic Leadership, Trust, and Social Exchange Relationships under the Influence of Leader Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-32, May.
    11. Xiaomeng Lucock & Victoria Westbrooke, 2021. "Trusting in the “Eye in the Sky”? Farmers’ and Auditors’ Perceptions of Drone Use in Environmental Auditing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-20, November.
    12. Camilla Chlebna & Jannika Mattes, 2024. "This paper explores the dynamics that result in the entrenched positions that can be empirically observed in regions in the context of energy transition. We conduct our analysis along the concept of s," GEIST - Geography of Innovation and Sustainability Transitions 2024(01), GEIST Working Paper Series.
    13. Kamel Mouloudj & Maria Carmela Aprile & Ahmed Chemseddine Bouarar & Anuli Njoku & Marian A. Evans & Le Vu Lan Oanh & Dachel Martínez Asanza & Smail Mouloudj, 2025. "Investigating Antecedents of Intention to Use Green Agri-Food Delivery Apps: Merging TPB with Trust and Electronic Word of Mouth," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-23, April.
    14. Pang, Hua & Ruan, Yang, 2024. "Disentangling composite influences of social connectivity and system interactivity on continuance intention in mobile short video applications: The pivotal moderation of user-perceived benefits," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    15. Huang, Yujie & Liu, Shucheng & Gan, Jiawu & Liu, Baoliu & Wu, Yuxi, 2024. "How does the construction of new generation of national AI innovative development pilot zones drive enterprise ESG development? Empirical evidence from China," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    16. Alexandra Gerbasi & Dominika Latusek, 2015. "Trust-building in international business ventures," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) hal-01137667, HAL.
    17. Orlando Gomes, 2025. "The Human Capital — Artificial Intelligence Symbiosis and Economic Growth," De Economist, Springer, vol. 173(2), pages 331-365, July.
    18. Yi Jin & Bo Liu, 2025. "Industry Concentration and Digital Process Innovation: Evidence from Chinese Rail Transit Firms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-15, May.
    19. Jacco L. Wielhouwer, 2015. "The public cost of broken trust: Spillover effects of financial reporting irregularities," Journal of Trust Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(2), pages 132-152, October.
    20. Victoria Westbrooke & Xiaomeng Lucock & Isobel Greenhalgh, 2023. "Drone Use in On-Farm Environmental Compliance: An Investigation of Regulators’ Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-15, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aoe:wpaper:2502. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Johan Miörner (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.geist-wp.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.