IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/yr9tg_v1.html

Psychological features of dispute content and public acceptance of AI in legal adjudication: evidence for systematic variation beyond individual differences

Author

Listed:
  • Fujita, Masahiro
  • Watamura, Eiichiro Dr.

Abstract

Public acceptance of artificial intelligence (AI) in legal decision-making has been primarily explained through individual differences in personality traits and general attitudes toward technology. However, emerging evidence suggests that contextual features of legal disputes themselves may systematically influence preferences for AI versus human adjudicators. Across two studies with Japanese participants (N = 1,384 and N = 596), we examined whether psychological characteristics of dispute content—beyond demographics and individual traits—shape acceptability judgments for algorithmic adjudication. Study 1 employed exploratory factor analysis on acceptability ratings across 46 legal dispute vignettes, revealing a robust two-dimensional structure distinguishing interpersonal-relational disputes (where human adjudicators were strongly preferred) from institutional-procedural disputes (where AI acceptance was comparatively higher, though not surpassing human preference in most cases). Study 2 replicated this dimensional structure in an independent sample and demonstrated that experimentally manipulated contextual features—emotional involvement and prototypicality—systematically modulated acceptability judgments, with effects varying by dispositional trust, AI-specific attitudes, and gender. AI-specific expectations emerged as the strongest predictor of acceptance (η2 = 0.252), and a three-way interaction among emotional involvement, gender, and prototypicality indicated that contextual effects are moderated by individual characteristics. These findings suggest that the psychological features of dispute content constitute an overlooked dimension in AI acceptance research, extending beyond technology acceptance models to fundamental questions about how individuals construe social problems and allocate adjudicative authority. We discuss limitations related to measurement approaches, alternative psychological mechanisms, and directions for future research employing real-world case materials and direct assessment of cognitive processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Fujita, Masahiro & Watamura, Eiichiro Dr., 2026. "Psychological features of dispute content and public acceptance of AI in legal adjudication: evidence for systematic variation beyond individual differences," SocArXiv yr9tg_v1, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:yr9tg_v1
    DOI: 10.31235/osf.io/yr9tg_v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/6a41e8270984d818c23fecca/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31235/osf.io/yr9tg_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. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    2. Viswanath Venkatesh & Fred D. Davis, 2000. "A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(2), pages 186-204, February.
    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. Zhang, Kai & Cheng, Xiaoting, 2025. "Determinants of consumers’ intentions to use smart home devices from the perspective of perceived value: A mixed SEM, NCA, and fsQCA study," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    2. Debora Bettiga & Lucio Lamberti & Emanuele Lettieri, 2020. "Individuals’ adoption of smart technologies for preventive health care: a structural equation modeling approach," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 203-214, June.
    3. Yu Wang & Shanyong Wang & Jing Wang & Jiuchang Wei & Chenglin Wang, 2020. "An empirical study of consumers’ intention to use ride-sharing services: using an extended technology acceptance model," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 397-415, February.
    4. Paul Juinn Bing Tan, 2013. "Applying the UTAUT to Understand Factors Affecting the Use of English E-Learning Websites in Taiwan," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(4), pages 21582440135, October.
    5. Peter Mantello & Manh-Tung Ho & Minh-Hoang Nguyen & Quan-Hoang Vuong, 2023. "Machines that feel: behavioral determinants of attitude towards affect recognition technology—upgrading technology acceptance theory with the mindsponge model," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-16, December.
    6. Mahajan, Advitya Indu & Taggar, Rashi & Gupta, Suruchi, 2025. "Augmented reality in E-Commerce: A dual value and barrier-based perspective on Gen Z's satisfaction and AR-Integrated shopping behavior," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    7. Fox, Stephen & Groesser, Stefan N., 2016. "Reframing the relevance of research to practice," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 457-465.
    8. Mäntymäki, Matti & Salo, Jari, 2013. "Purchasing behavior in social virtual worlds: An examination of Habbo Hotel," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 282-290.
    9. Fatima Zahra Barrane & Gahima Egide Karuranga & Diane Poulin, 2018. "Technology Adoption and Diffusion: A New Application of the UTAUT Model," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(06), pages 1-19, December.
    10. Joan Torrent-Sellens & Cristian Salazar-Concha & Pilar Ficapal-Cusí & Francesc Saigí-Rubió, 2021. "Using Digital Platforms to Promote Blood Donation: Motivational and Preliminary Evidence from Latin America and Spain," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(8), pages 1-17, April.
    11. Garima Malik & A. Sajeevan Rao, 2019. "Extended expectation-confirmation model to predict continued usage of ODR/ride hailing apps: role of perceived value and self-efficacy," Information Technology & Tourism, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 461-482, December.
    12. Wang, Guoqiang & Tan, Garry Wei-Han & Yuan, Yunpeng & Ooi, Keng-Boon & Dwivedi, Yogesh K., 2022. "Revisiting TAM2 in behavioral targeting advertising: A deep learning-based dual-stage SEM-ANN analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    13. Riffat Ara Zannat Tama & Md Mahmudul Hoque & Ying Liu & Mohammad Jahangir Alam & Mark Yu, 2023. "An Application of Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) to Examining Farmers’ Behavioral Attitude and Intention towards Conservation Agriculture in Bangladesh," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-22, February.
    14. Scott, Stephanie & Hughes, Paul & Hodgkinson, Ian & Kraus, Sascha, 2019. "Technology adoption factors in the digitization of popular culture: Analyzing the online gambling market," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    15. Pan Gong & Ningshuang Zeng & Kunhui Ye & Markus König, 2019. "An Empirical Study on the Acceptance of 4D BIM in EPC Projects in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-19, March.
    16. Cabrera-Sánchez, Juan-Pedro & Villarejo-Ramos, à ngel F., 2020. "Acceptance and use of big data techniques in services companies," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    17. Alfiero, Simona & Battisti, Enrico & Ηadjielias, Elias, 2022. "Black box technology, usage-based insurance, and prediction of purchase behavior: Evidence from the auto insurance sector," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    18. Cowan, Kelly R. & Daim, Tugrul U., 2011. "Review of technology acquisition and adoption research in the energy sector," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 183-199.
    19. Chia-Chien Hsu & Brian Sandford & Chia-Ju Ling & Ching-Torng Lin, 2021. "Can the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) Help Explain Subjective Well-Being in Senior Citizens due to Gateball Participation?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(17), pages 1-15, August.
    20. Asmussen, Katherine E. & Mondal, Aupal & Bhat, Chandra R., 2022. "Adoption of partially automated vehicle technology features and impacts on vehicle miles of travel (VMT)," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 156-179.

    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:yr9tg_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.