SavedAdd your journal

Journals / KADEM Kadın Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2026 / Sayı: 1 Özel Sayı

Gender and AI: An Ethical Assessment of Why Female Users’ Trust Matters

Cinsiyet ve Yapay Zekâ: Kadın Kullanıcıların Güveninin Önemi Üzerine Etik Bir Değerlendirme

Banu Buruk(Donders Institute, Radboud University)0000-0003-2272-5865
Berna Arda(ANKARA UNIVERSITY, ANKARA FACULTY OF MEDICINE)0000-0003-2043-2444
Pages
30–56
Publication Date
2026-09-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

We argue that care ethics provides a suitable framework for designing AI systems that are responsive to relational vulnerability, contextual inequalities, and diverse user experiences.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Women frequently report lower levels of trust in artificial intelligence than men and express greater concerns regarding the use of this technology.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Through a normative ethical analysis informed by empirical findings, this paper examines the claim that fostering calibrated trust in AI among all members of society requires an ethics-of-care approach.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:We argue that care ethics provides a suitable framework for designing AI systems that are responsive to relational vulnerability, contextual inequalities, and diverse user experiences.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Güven açığı · kalibre edilmiş güven · kadınlar

Abstract

Women frequently report lower levels of trust in artificial intelligence than men and express greater concerns regarding the use of this technology. Existing literature suggests several contributing factors, including gender bias in AI outputs, social concerns about professional judgment when relying on AI, women’s underrepresentation in the AI workforce, and heightened concerns about data privacy and misuse. While closing this “AI trust gap” is important to ensure equitable access to the benefits of AI, this paper argues that the issue should not be framed merely as increasing adoption or consumer engagement; instead, women’s more cautious relationship with AI may reflect a valuable form of critical trust that offers important insights for ethical AI design. The analysis further suggests that women’s lower levels of trust in AI may function as a form of critical trust that helps identify limitations, biases, and accountability gaps that might otherwise remain overlooked in AI design and governance. Through a normative ethical analysis informed by empirical findings, this paper examines the claim that fostering calibrated trust in AI among all members of society requires an ethics-of-care approach. Rather than promoting either blind trust or excessive distrust, calibrated trust involves reliance that appropriately reflects AI’s capabilities, limitations, and broader societal implications. We argue that care ethics provides a suitable framework for designing AI systems that are responsive to relational vulnerability, contextual inequalities, and diverse user experiences.

Özet

Kadınlar, erkeklere kıyasla yapay zekâya daha düşük düzeyde güven duyduklarını ve bu teknolojinin kullanımına ilişkin daha fazla kaygı taşıdıklarını sıkça dile getirmektedir. Mevcut literatür; yapay zekâ çıktılarındaki cinsiyet yanlılığı, profesyonel yargıda yapay zekâya güvenmeye dair sosyal endişeler, sektördeki kadın temsilinin yetersizliği ile veri gizliliği ve güvenliğini kötüye kullanım gibi çeşitli faktörlere işaret etmektedir. Bu “yapay zekâ güven açığını” kapatmak, yapay zekânın faydalarına eşit erişimi sağlamak açısından önemli olmakla birlikte; bu makale, sorunun yalnızca benimsemeyi veya tüketici katılımını artırmak olarak çerçevelenmemesi gerektiğini savunmaktadır. Bunun yerine, kadınların yapay zekâya karşı sergilediği temkinli yaklaşım, etik yapay zekâ tasarımı için önemli içgörüler sunan eleştirel bir güven biçimini yansıtabilir. Analiz ayrıca, kadınların yapay zekâya yönelik daha düşük güven düzeylerinin, yapay zekâ tasarımı ve yönetişiminde gözden kaçabilecek sınırlılıkları, önyargıları ve hesap verebilirlik eksikliklerini görünür kılan bir eleştirel güven biçimi olarak işlev görebileceğini göstermektedir. Ampirik bulgularla desteklenen normatif bir etik analiz yoluyla bu makale, toplumun tüm kesimlerinde yapay zekâya yönelik dengeli bir güveni teşvik etmenin bir bakım etiği yaklaşımı gerektirdiği iddiasını incelemektedir. Kör bir güveni ya da aşırı güvensizliği teşvik etmek yerine dengeli güven; yapay zekânın yeteneklerini, sınırlarını ve toplumsal etkilerini gerçekçi biçimde yansıtan bir yaklaşımı ifade eder. Çalışma, bakım etiğinin; ilişkisel kırılganlığa, bağlamsal eşitsizliklere ve farklı kullanıcı deneyimlerine duyarlı yapay zekâ sistemleri tasarlamak için elverişli bir çerçeve sunduğunu savunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Buruk, B., Arda, B. (2026). Gender and AI: An Ethical Assessment of Why Female Users’ Trust Matters. KADEM Kadın Araştırmaları Dergisi, Sayı: 1 Özel Sayı, 30–56. https://doi.org/10.21798/kadem.2026.217

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (38)

  1. Arbanas, J., et al. (2024, December 3). Earning trust as gen AI takes hold: 2024 connected consumer survey. Deloitte. Retrieved from https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/telecommunications/connectivity-mobile-trends-survey/2024.html
  2. Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Chapter 10: Method and Moral Justification. In Principles of biomedical ethics (Eighth edition). Oxford University Press.
  3. Boles, S. Y. (2026, May 5). Should you ask ChatGPT for medical advice? Harvard Gazette. Retrieved from https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2026/05/should-you-ask-chatgpt-for-medical-advice/
  4. Borgerson, J. (2007). On the harmony of feminist ethics and business ethics. Business and Society Review, 112(4), 477–509.
  5. Buruk, B., Ekmekci, P. E., & Arda, B. (2020). A critical perspective on guidelines for responsible and trustworthy artificial intelligence. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 23(3), 387–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019- 020-09948-1
  6. Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Schafer, W. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(3), 367–383. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.3.367
  7. Choi, W., Bak, H., An, J., Zhang, Y., & Stvilia, B. (2024). College students’ credibility assessments of GenAI-generated information for academic tasks: An interview study. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 76, 867–883. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24978
  8. Coeckelbergh, M. (2013). Drones, information technology, and distance: Mapping the moral epistemology of remote fighting. Ethics and Information Technology, 15(2), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-013-9313-6
  9. Cohn, C. (2014). “Maternal thinking” and the concept of “vulnerability” in security paradigms, policies, and practices. Journal of International Political Theory, 10(1), 46–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/1755088213507186
  10. D’Ignazio, C., & Klein, L. F. (2020). Data feminism. MIT Press.
  11. Dalmiya, V. (2002). Why should a knower care? Hypatia, 17(1), 34–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2002.tb00679.x
  12. Drage, E., McInerney, K., & Browne, J. (2024). Engineers on responsibility: Feminist approaches to who’s responsible for ethical AI. Ethics and Information Technology, 26(1), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676- 023-09739-1
  13. Dulin, A. M. (2007). A lesson on social role theory: An example of human behavior in the social environment theory. Advances in Social Work, 8(1), 104–112. https://doi.org/10.18060/134
  14. Gaucher, D., Friesen, J., & Kay, A. C. (2011). Evidence that gendered wording in job advertisements exists and sustains gender inequality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(1), 109–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022530
  15. Gilligan, C. (2003). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development (38th anniversary ed.). Harvard University Press.
  16. Jones, A. H. (1999). Narrative in medical ethics. Western Journal of Medicine, 171(1), 50–52. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7178.253
  17. Held, V. (2010). Can the ethics of care handle violence? Ethics and Social Welfare, 4(2), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/17496535.2010.484256
  18. Held, V. (2011). Morality, care, and international law. Ethics & Global Politics, 4(3), 173–194. https://doi.org/10.3402/egp.v4i3.8405
  19. Hupfer, S., Matheson, B., Crossan, G., Bucaille, A. & Loucks, J. (2024, November 9). Women and generative AI: The adoption gap is closing fast, but a trust gap persists. Deloitte. Retrieved from https://www.deloitte.com/us/ en/insights/industry/technology/technology-media-and-telecompredictions/2025/women-and-generative-ai.html
  20. Lavanchy, M., Reichert, P., Narayanan, J., & Savani, K. (2023). Applicants’ fairness perceptions of algorithm-driven hiring procedures. Journal of Business Ethics, 188(1), 125–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05320-w
  21. Maurer Herter, M., Pizzutti dos Santos, C., & Costa Pinto, D. (2014). “Man, I shop like a woman!” The effects of gender and emotions on consumer shopping behaviour outcomes. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 42(9), 780–804. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-03-2013-0066
  22. McCarthy, J. (2003). Principlism or narrative ethics: must we choose between them? Medical Humanities, 29(2), 65–71. https://doi.org/10.1136/mh.29.2.65
  23. Narayan, U. (1995). Colonialism and its others: Considerations on rights and care discourses. Hypatia, 10(2), 133–140. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.1995.tb01375.x
  24. Parasurama, P., Sedoc, J., & Ghose, A. (2022). Gendered information in resumes and hiring bias: A predictive modeling approach (SSRN Working Paper). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4074976
  25. Pettersen, T. (2011). The ethics of care: Normative structures and empirical implications. Health Care Analysis, 19(1), 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-010-0163-7
  26. Ramvi, E., & Gjerstad, B. (Eds.). (2025). Caring futures: Rethinking technology and care ethics. Scandinavian University Press. https://doi.org/10.18261/9788215071398-25
  27. Schmidt-Felzmann, H. (2003). Pragmatic principles--methodological pragmatism in the principle-based approach to bioethics. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 28(5-6), 581–596. https://doi.org/10.1076/ jmep.28.5.581.18817
  28. Suárez, D., & García-Mariñoso, B. (2025). On the verge of a digital divide in the use of generative AI? Telecommunications Policy, 49(7). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2025.102997
  29. Sivakaminathan, S. S., & Musi, E. (2025). ChatGPT is a gender bias echochamber in HR recruitment: An NLP analysis and framework to uncover the language roots of bias. AI & Society, 41(4), 2841–2861. https://doi. org/10.1007/s00146-025-02564-8
  30. Tronto, J. C. (2017). There is an alternative: Homines curans and the limits of neoliberalism. International Journal of Care and Caring, 1(1), 27–43. https://doi.org/10.1332/239788217X14866281687583
  31. Van de Poel, I., & Sand, M. (2018). Varieties of responsibility: Two problems of responsible innovation. Synthese, 198(19), 4769–4787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-01951-7
  32. Villegas-Galaviz, C., & Martin, K. (2024). Moral distance, AI, and the ethics of care. AI & Society, 39(4), 1695–1706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-023-01642-z
  33. Von Der Pfordten, D. (2012). Five Elements of Normative Ethics—A General Theory of Normative Individualism. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 15(4), 449–471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-011-9299-2
  34. Walter, A. (2024). Utilizing language-generating artificial intelligence in educational planning: A case study. Journal of Interdisciplinary Teacher Leadership, 8(1), 29–59. https://doi.org/10.46767/kfp.2016-0052
  35. Watson, N., McKie, L., Hughes, B., Hopkins, D., & Gregory, S. (2004). (Inter)dependence, needs and care: The potential for disability and feminist theorists to develop an emancipatory model. Sociology, 38(2), 331–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038504040867
  36. Weltzien, H., & Melé, D. (2009). Can an SME become a global corporate citizen? Evidence from a case study. Journal of Business Ethics, 88, 551–563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0123-z
  37. World Economic Forum. (2023). Global gender gap report 2023. Retrieved from https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2023.pdf
  38. Yu, Y. (2026). Backcasting the trust gap: A strategic road map for clinician adoption of AI diagnostics by 2040. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 28, e94234. https://doi.org/10.2196/94234