IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/by96n_v1.html

Citizen Trust in AI Regulatory Regimes in Four EU Countries

Author

Listed:
  • Leidorf-Tidå, B.J.A.
  • König, Pascal

Abstract

Trust in artificial intelligence (AI) applications is deemed crucial for uptake of the technology and the development of an AI market. In the present article, we argue that the institutional design of regulatory regimes matters for whether citizens trust AI systems. We study how trust in AI systems depends on who the responsible regulator is, the scope of the regulator’s scrutiny of AI systems, and the involvement of external stakeholders in regulatory oversight. Based on a conjoint design, we examine how respondents value these institutional design choices for the case of high-risk AI systems used in health care. Using samples from Lithuania, Romania, Sweden, and the Netherlands, with 4001 respondents overall, the pre-registered experiment shows that citizens have more trust in AI systems if vendors, civil society and especially independent researchers are involved in oversight, and if regulators actively scrutinize AI systems rather than relying solely on self-reporting. At least in two countries, citizens also seem to have more trust in AI systems if the sectoral health care regulator is the responsible regulator instead of a cross-sectoral regulator such as the national Data Protection Authority or a specific AI regulator.

Suggested Citation

  • Leidorf-Tidå, B.J.A. & König, Pascal, 2026. "Citizen Trust in AI Regulatory Regimes in Four EU Countries," SocArXiv by96n_v1, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:by96n_v1
    DOI: 10.31235/osf.io/by96n_v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/6abe76781f6457daddd0e8f1/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31235/osf.io/by96n_v1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stephan Grimmelikhuijsen & Feie Herkes & Ian Leistikow & Jos Verkroost & Femke de Vries & Wilte G. Zijlstra, 2021. "Can decision transparency increase citizen trust in regulatory agencies? Evidence from a representative survey experiment," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(1), pages 17-31, January.
    2. Seulki Lee & Marc Esteve, 2023. "What drives the perceived legitimacy of collaborative governance? An experimental study," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(8), pages 1517-1538, August.
    3. Pascal D. König & Julia Felfeli & Anja Achtziger & Georg Wenzelburger, 2024. "The importance of effectiveness versus transparency and stakeholder involvement in citizens’ perception of public sector algorithms," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(4), pages 1061-1082, April.
    4. Matthew R O’Shaughnessy & Daniel S Schiff & Lav R Varshney & Christopher J Rozell & Mark A Davenport, 2023. "What governs attitudes toward artificial intelligence adoption and governance?," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(2), pages 161-176.
    5. Tobias D. Krafft & Katharina A. Zweig & Pascal D. König, 2022. "How to regulate algorithmic decision‐making: A framework of regulatory requirements for different applications," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), pages 119-136, January.
    6. Regine Paul, 2024. "European artificial intelligence “trusted throughout the world”: Risk‐based regulation and the fashioning of a competitive common AI market," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), pages 1065-1082, October.
    7. Tereza Capelos & Colin Provost & Maria Parouti & Julie Barnett & Jonathan Chenoweth & Chris Fife‐Schaw & Tanika Kelay, 2016. "Ingredients of institutional reputations and citizen engagement with regulators," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 350-367, December.
    8. Jan Beyers & Sarah Arras, 2021. "Stakeholder consultations and the legitimacy of regulatory decision‐making: A survey experiment in Belgium," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 877-893, July.
    9. Anne-Marie Nussberger & Lan Luo & L. Elisa Celis & M. J. Crockett, 2022. "Public attitudes value interpretability but prioritize accuracy in Artificial Intelligence," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, December.
    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. Jonathan Zeitlin & David van der Duin & Theresa Kuhn & Maria Weimer & Martin Dybdahl Jensen, 2023. "Governance reforms and public acceptance of regulatory decisions: Cross‐national evidence from linked survey experiments on pesticides authorization in the European Union," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 980-999, October.
    2. Libby Maman & Lauren Fahy & Stephan Grimmelikhuijsen & Moritz Kappler, 2025. "Measuring citizen trust in regulatory agencies: A systematic review and ways forward," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 39-86, January.
    3. Tobias Bach & Marlene Jugl & Dustin Köhler & Kai Wegrich, 2022. "Regulatory agencies, reputational threats, and communicative responses," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 1042-1057, October.
    4. Sun, Weixin & Zhang, Xuantao & Li, Minghao & Wang, Yong, 2023. "Interpretable high-stakes decision support system for credit default forecasting," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    5. Yue Guo & Tianhao Zhai & Hao Huang & Luozhong Wang, 2025. "Problem exposure and problem solving: The impact of regulatory regimes on citizens' trust in regulated sectors," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 21-38, January.
    6. Michele Crepaz & Gizem Arikan, 2024. "The effects of transparency regulation on political trust and perceived corruption: Evidence from a survey experiment," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 896-913, July.
    7. Benjamin Monnery & Alexandre Chirat, 2024. "Trust in the Fight Against Political Corruption: A Survey Experiment among Citizens and Experts," Working Papers AFED 24-02, Association Francaise d'Economie du Droit (AFED).
    8. Fang Feng & Rongyan Zhu & Chunhui Wu & Jia Wei & Tinglan Huang & Mengmeng Wang, 2025. "Predicting Chinese Postgraduates’ Intention to Use Generative Artificial Intelligence in Academic Writing: A Sequential Exploratory Mixed-Method Study," SAGE Open, , vol. 15(4), pages 21582440251, December.
    9. James Syme, 2025. "Using Dual Graphs to Model Territorial Communities of Interest," Working Paper Series of the School of Government and Public Transformation 6, School of Government and Public Transformation.
    10. Lei Zhou & Jiannan Wu, 2026. "Enabling and Constraining: How Informal Rules Shape Collaborative Governance in Digital Transformation?," Public Administration & Development, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 46(3), pages 460-475, August.
    11. Li, Yuhang & Ma, Chunhao & Yu, Lisai, 2026. "Artificial intelligence and digital Nationalism: A social media discourse analysis," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    12. Jan Boon, 2023. "Reputation management as an interplay of structure and agency: A strategic‐relational approach," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 1114-1130, October.
    13. Lauren A. Fahy & Erik‐Hans Klijn & Judith van Erp, 2025. "Regulatory agency reputation acquisition: A Q Methodology analysis of the views of agency employees," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 104-125, January.
    14. Faradj Koliev & Karin Bäckstrand, 2025. "Citizen preferences for climate policy implementation: the role of multistakeholder partnerships," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 41-59, March.
    15. Runxi Zeng & Di Zhu & Richard Evans, 2026. "When algorithms fail us: perceived algorithmic ineffectiveness, psychological reactance, and implicit personality as drivers of algorithm aversion behavior on short-form video platforms," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 13(1), pages 1-12, December.
    16. Weißmüller, Kristina Sabrina & König, Pascal, 2026. "Understanding Human-Technology Interaction: Models, Ethics, and the Future of Control," SocArXiv hd7as_v1, Center for Open Science.
    17. Mette Østergaard Pedersen & Koen Verhoest & Heidi Houlberg Salomonsen, 2024. "How is reputation management by regulatory agencies related to their employees' reputational perception?," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), pages 1193-1209, October.
    18. Saltanat Ayubayeva & Larissa Kussainova & Alua Ibrayeva & Gulim Ukibayeva & Khalel Kussainov & Talgat Akimzhanov, 2025. "Regulatory and legal support of the positive reputation of state bodies: On the example of the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan," RIVISTA DI STUDI SULLA SOSTENIBILITA', FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2025(1), pages 157-181.
    19. Julia Wesdorp, 2026. "In the Eye of the Storm? A Quantitative Content Analysis on the Influence of Surrogate Inspectorates on Media Frames," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 705-721, April.
    20. Lee, Hyun-Suk, 2024. "Automated tariff design for energy supply–demand matching based on Bayesian optimization: Technical framework and policy implications," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).

    More about this item

    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:osf:socarx:by96n_v1. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://socarxiv.org .

    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.