100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached 4.2 TrustPilot
logo-home
Exam (elaborations)

HRPYC81 Project 5 Assignment 4 (FINAL RESEARCH REPORT ANSWERS) 2025 (596428)

Rating
-
Sold
1
Pages
28
Grade
A+
Uploaded on
29-09-2025
Written in
2025/2026

HRPYC81 Project 5 Assignment 4 (FINAL RESEARCH REPORT ANSWERS) 2025 (596428); 100% TRUSTED Complete, trusted solutions and explanations. For assistance, Whats-App 0.6.7-1.7.1-1.7.3.9. Ensure your success with us.. Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies are increasingly employed in medical diagnostics, mental health and psychology, autonomous driving, criminal sentencing assessment, and wealth management. These innovative advancements will change not only our profession as psychologists (Krach & Corcoran, 2024; Zhang & Wang, 2024) but also our mobility (e.g., Hamburger et al., 2022), health behaviour (Newby et al., 2021) or financial decisions (Bhat, 2024). Most importantly, we will increasingly rely on the decision-making processes of AI applications. Some of these decisions can be benign, like choosing flowers to be planted in a public park to beautify the space. These decisions are mainly based on practicality, preference, convenience, or necessity to achieve a particular goal or resolve a situation/problem. In contrast, other decisions require the application of right and wrong principles, ethics and values. These moral decisions mainly focus on upholding justice, fairness, and the well-being of others. Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology is applied to making both benign and moral decisions. Irrespective of whether humans or AI make moral or other decisions, the decision-making process involves choosing from competing goals, values, and preferences, among others. Thus, many decisions involve trade-offs (Shaddy et al., 2021). Some trade-offs can be benign; for instance, taking public transport instead of a car might cost me time. Other trade-offs can be severe, such as sacrificing a person’s life to save many lives. The latter is also known as the Trolley Dilemma (Thomson, 1984; see also an interesting study on cultural differences, Ahlenius & Tännsjö, 2012), which inspired Greene and colleagues to develop the dual-process theory of moral judgment (Greene, 2007; 2023; Greene & Haidt, 2002; Greene et al., 2001). Research is still in its beginning stages, yet it is increasingly contributing to understanding people’s attitudes towards AI and the psychological factors affecting these attitudes (e.g., De Freitas et al., 2023; Kaya et al., 2024). More specifically, more studies are being conducted to understand how people appraise moral decisions regarding AI applications within different domains. For instance, research concerning autonomous vehicles has shown that people appraise moral decisions – regardless of the moral dilemma – depending on their decision-making mode (utilitarian versus deontological) and personal perspective (Frank et al., 2019). Zhang et al. (2023) applied different moral dilemmas (e.g., trolley versus footbridge dilemma), demonstrating that in different types of moral dilemmas, people adapt different modes of moral judgement to artificial intelligence. In contrast, Choung et al. (2024) studied people’s perceptions of AI decision-making in contrast to human decision-making within the context of job application, whereas Kim et al. (2020) focused on the question “When Do consumers trust artificial intelligence? In this research project, we will explore people’s attitudes towards AI applications within different areas (e.g., autonomous vehicles, job applications, and mental health) and the psychological factors that influence the acceptance of AI applications, such as personality, trust, anxiety, and decision-making mode HRPYC81/102 99 (utilitarian versus deontological). Students can select at least two of these predictor variables of attitudes towards AI to define their individual research projects within this research project. The study will utilize a cross-sectional online survey hosted on the Qualtrics platform to explore the relationships between AI attitudes and the proposed predictors within different contexts.

Show more Read less










Whoops! We can’t load your doc right now. Try again or contact support.

Document information

Uploaded on
September 29, 2025
Number of pages
28
Written in
2025/2026
Type
Exam (elaborations)
Contains
Questions & answers

Subjects

Content preview

HRPYC81
Project 5 Assignment 4 2025
FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

Unique number: 596428

Due Date: 2025




Terms of use
By making use of this document you agree to:
 Use this document as a guide for learning, comparison and reference purpose,
Terms of use
 Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the contents of this document as your own work,
By making use of this document you agree to:
 Use this document
Fully accept the consequences
solely as a guide forshould you plagiarise
learning, reference,or and
misuse this document.
comparison purposes,
 Ensure originality of your own work, and fully accept the consequences should you plagiarise or misuse this document.
 Comply with all relevant standards, guidelines, regulations, and legislation governing academic and written work.

Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is" without any express or
implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or liability for any actions taken based on the
information contained within this document. This document is intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes.
Reproduction, resale, or transmission of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.

, +27 67 171 1739



FINAL RESEARCH REPORT

UNDERSTANDING TRUST IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: THE ROLE OF
PERSONALITY AND AI ANXIETY IN SHAPING ATTITUDES TOWARDS AI
APPLICATIONS IN SOUTH AFRICA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................ 4
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 5
2. LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................... 5
2.1 Introduction to the Behaviour: Attitudes Towards AI Applications ..................... 5
2.2 Conceptualizing Moral Decision-Making and Judgments .................................. 6
2.2.1 Definitions and Theoretical Perspectives .................................................... 6
2.2.2 Dual-Process Theory of Moral Judgment ................................................... 6
2.3 Psychological Factors Influencing Attitudes Toward AI ..................................... 7
2.3.1 Overview of Psychological Predictors ......................................................... 7
2.3.2 Positive and Negative Attitudes: Empirical Evidence .................................. 7
2.4 Personality as a Predictor of AI Attitudes .......................................................... 7
2.4.1 Big Five Personality Traits and AI ............................................................... 7
2.4.2 Empirical Studies on Personality and AI ..................................................... 8
2.5 AI Anxiety and Its Impact on AI Attitudes .......................................................... 8
2.5.1 Defining AI Anxiety ..................................................................................... 8
2.5.2 Evidence Linking AI Anxiety and Negative Attitudes ................................... 8
2.5.3 Theoretical Framing via Dual-Process Theory ............................................ 9
2.6 Research in the South African Context ............................................................. 9
2.6.1 South African Socio-Psychological Dynamics............................................. 9
2.6.2 Gaps in Local Research.............................................................................. 9
2.7 Consistency and Contradictions in the Literature ............................................ 10
2.8 Hypotheses ..................................................................................................... 10
3. RESEARCH METHOD ......................................................................................... 10
4. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................. 11
5. PARTICIPANTS ................................................................................................... 12
6. DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE .................................................................... 13
7. MEASUREMENTS ............................................................................................... 14
8. DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................................................. 15
9. RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 16
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is"
without any express or implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or
liability for any actions taken based on the information contained within this document. This document is
intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes. Reproduction, resale, or transmission
of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.

, +27 67 171 1739



9.1 Preliminary Analysis ........................................................................................ 16
9.2 Main Analysis .................................................................................................. 17
9.2.1 Hypothesis 1 ............................................................................................. 17
9.2.2 Hypothesis 2 ............................................................................................. 17
9.3 Summary of Findings ...................................................................................... 18
10. DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................... 19
10.1 Support of Original Hypotheses .................................................................... 19
10.2 Similarity of Results with Previous Research ................................................ 19
10.3 Limitations ..................................................................................................... 20
10.4 Contributions ................................................................................................. 21
10.5 Implications ................................................................................................... 22
11. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 23
9. REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 24




Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is"
without any express or implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or
liability for any actions taken based on the information contained within this document. This document is
intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes. Reproduction, resale, or transmission
of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.

Get to know the seller

Seller avatar
Reputation scores are based on the amount of documents a seller has sold for a fee and the reviews they have received for those documents. There are three levels: Bronze, Silver and Gold. The better the reputation, the more your can rely on the quality of the sellers work.
EduPal University of South Africa (Unisa)
View profile
Follow You need to be logged in order to follow users or courses
Sold
149159
Member since
7 year
Number of followers
35995
Documents
4310
Last sold
1 day ago

4,2

13554 reviews

5
7802
4
2688
3
1790
2
455
1
819

Recently viewed by you

Why students choose Stuvia

Created by fellow students, verified by reviews

Quality you can trust: written by students who passed their exams and reviewed by others who've used these notes.

Didn't get what you expected? Choose another document

No worries! You can immediately select a different document that better matches what you need.

Pay how you prefer, start learning right away

No subscription, no commitments. Pay the way you're used to via credit card or EFT and download your PDF document instantly.

Student with book image

“Bought, downloaded, and aced it. It really can be that simple.”

Alisha Student

Frequently asked questions