AI Receptivity or AI Adoption Breadth? A Tool-Specific Reanalysis of the Lower-Literacy/Higher-Usage Link
arXiv AIArchived Jun 15, 2026✓ Full text saved
arXiv:2606.13734v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent evidence reported by Tully, Longoni, and Appel (2025) suggests that lower artificial intelligence (AI) literacy predicts greater receptivity toward AI. We revisit this claim using the public data from Study 3 of that article, which measures past usage of five AI tool categories on a five-point frequency scale. We first reproduce the negative association between AI literacy and aggregate AI usage using OLS on participant-level averages, binar
Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary· Claude Sonnet
Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence
[Submitted on 11 Jun 2026]
AI Receptivity or AI Adoption Breadth? A Tool-Specific Reanalysis of the Lower-Literacy/Higher-Usage Link
Hristo Inouzhe
Recent evidence reported by Tully, Longoni, and Appel (2025) suggests that lower artificial intelligence (AI) literacy predicts greater receptivity toward AI. We revisit this claim using the public data from Study 3 of that article, which measures past usage of five AI tool categories on a five-point frequency scale. We first reproduce the negative association between AI literacy and aggregate AI usage using OLS on participant-level averages, binary logit, ordered logit, and multinomial logit specifications. We then show that the aggregate relationship masks substantial heterogeneity by tool type. In our demographic-adjusted primary specification, AI literacy does not significantly predict text AI usage (ordered-logit \beta = -0.090, p = .387), whereas it remains a strong predictor of non-text AI adoption (\beta = -0.377, p < .001). The non-text effect is also robust under Tully et al.'s original Study 3 control specification (\beta = -0.502, p < .001). Binary, ordered-logit, and multinomial specifications suggest that the non-text relationship is primarily an adoption/non-adoption pattern rather than evidence of intensive use: the demographic-adjusted odds ratio of ever having used a non-text AI tool is 0.68. Thus, in the study that measures self-reported past usage rather than stated preferences, the evidence does not support a simple claim that lower AI literacy predicts greater receptivity to AI in general. It points instead to a narrower pattern of broader adoption across lower-penetration, non-text AI tools.
Comments: 11 pages, 2 tables, 1 figure
Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
Cite as: arXiv:2606.13734 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2606.13734v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.13734
Focus to learn more
Submission history
From: Hristo Inouzhe Valdes [view email]
[v1] Thu, 11 Jun 2026 12:02:19 UTC (23 KB)
Access Paper:
HTML (experimental)
view license
Current browse context:
cs.AI
< prev | next >
new | recent | 2026-06
Change to browse by:
cs
References & Citations
NASA ADS
Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar
Export BibTeX Citation
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)