The processes of digital technologies continue breaking down the wall and thus changing the specifics of consumer behavior, and AI could become one of the primary factors influencing customization of the online experience. With the help of the personalization implemented through AI, one can recommend products, advertising messages, the user interface that fits personal preferences, and user browsing, as well as purchase trends [1]. This elevated level of differentiation can lead to consumer enjoyment, participation and devotion. However, the increased reliance on AI in the realm of online communications raises the question of the idea of consumer trust as well, albeit, in particular aspects of data confidentiality, alternative information transparency, and the realization of personal data information as a professional consultant activity [2]. Consumer confidence is determinant in internet purchases and is a common entry consideration towards aspiration to transact and on brand relationships that are potentially long term. Although, personalization may be a healthy effect with regards to feelings of relevance and convenience, too much or perception that personal information is being exchanged without value may lead to fear and mistrust may develop [3]. Moreover, cultural factors play crucial roles as far as the consumer attitude is concerned in regards to the AI-based personalization. It is possible that different individuals, who had different cultural heritage could perceive in a different way privacy, the level of acceptance towards technology and the level of trust they form towards each other, and therefore may show a different response towards similar AI intervention. Although the focus on AI personalization raises, very little is discussed in the existing literature on the transnational impact of AI on confidence of consumers in internet purchases. The dynamics are important dynamics to be familiar with because international businesses that aim to integrate and embrace AI practices that are culturally-sensitive and would attract trust. This shortcoming is addressed in the proposed research and accomplishment by studying how AI-based personalization affects consumer trust conditioning in different cultural contexts and provide decisions upon how technology, consumer psychology, and cultural norms rely on each other. The use of digital marketing should be informed by the results, and ethical application of AI usage and scaling development of personalized experiences, effective, and culturally sensitive should be developed.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been increasing to become a direct focus of the personalization strategy of digital commerce, as a relative concept, and this continues to profoundly affect consumer confidence and involvement. The impact of AI on buyer behavior and cross-cultural attitudes is multifold, and this has been explored in a number of studies. Hossain et al. state that organizational impact of AI-related capacities is quite long-term, and responsible and moral employment of AI is the decisive factor in enhancing the trust and professional management system [15]. Their writing enables it to focus on the fact that trust is a consumer-based phenomenon, as well as a phenomenon much revolved around perceived organizational integrity of the AI deployment as well. There was also a large amount of research regarding consumer intentions towards AI-generated personalization. Hyong and Huang [16] compare the purchase intentions of Chinese millennials in terms of wanting to purchase fashion patterns generated by AI, as the perceived value and behavior intentions are strongly related to the fact that AI can provide unique and customized experiences. This proves that personalization would create perceived advantages and by extension increase consumer confidence and buying intent. On the same note, Iršič and Gjergjek [17] examine the combined impact of the perceived benefits and risks of AI on consumer attitudes, and observe that the existence of perceived threats is a mediating variable in terms of results of trust. They indicate that consumers are more inclined to believe AI-based personalization in case the perceived risks are lower than the benefits. Combined with AI and interactive technologies with immersion, the use of new technologies impacts consumer engagement and trust even more. Kabir and Kang [18] introduce a model of interactions, engagements, and intentions and prove that AI and augmented reality alter the dynamics of user-platform communication, increasing trust and intent to proceed with the interaction. Khan and Shehawy [19] introduce the mediation of the relationship between AI decision-making and perceived trustworthiness by cognitive load and response biases and advises on the tendency to develop AI-systems that will be cognitively feasible among users.

Further research about cross-cultural differences will give a greater understanding of the views of AI personalization. Lazar and Develi [20] examine the management of customer relations initiated by Turkiye, and Morocco to demonstrate that cultural factor largely determines the construction of trust and interaction with AI-based platforms. Leonidas et al. [21] discuss the contribution of big data, the influence of networks, and AI integration to the practice of viral marketing and state that the ethical aspect of creating consumer confidence in various markets is the key to maintaining market relations. Similarly, Li et al. [22] develop a scale to measure customer experience in AI contexts, highlighting trust as a key dimension affected by personalization and AI interactions. Other research emphasizes sector-specific applications of AI personalization. Liu and Liang [23] investigate live-streaming platforms in China, showing that AI-enabled product recommendations enhance consumer trust and purchase intentions. Lopes et al. [24] examine AI-driven crowd management at festivals, illustrating that smarter personalization improves overall satisfaction and trust in services. In e-commerce contexts, Luu et al. [25] and Marinao-Artigas et al. [26] confirm that e-service quality, omnichannel shopping trust, and seamless AI-enabled experiences drive online purchase intentions, reinforcing the critical role of AI personalization in shaping consumer perceptions. Collectively, these studies demonstrate that AI personalization positively influences consumer trust, but outcomes are moderated by perceived risks, cognitive load, and cultural context [15–26]. While the benefits of AI-driven recommendations are evident, effective deployment requires careful consideration of ethical, psychological, and cultural factors to maximize consumer trust and engagement.

The research data was gathered using a sample population of 1,200 individuals in four nations in the United States, Japan, Germany, and India. The participants were sampled through stratified random sampling so that there could be representation based on the age groups, gender and online purchasing experiences [4]. A systematic internet survey, which had filled the demographic data, online shopping experience, and attitudes towards AI personalization, and five-point Likert scale questions related to trust capacity. Pre-processing of the survey data was done to include missing values, the normalization of the data as well as coding of the data to undergo analysis by the machine learning algorithms [5].

Personalization was modeled using four AI algorithms, these included Decision Tree, Random Forest, Support Vector Machine (SVM), and K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN). All the algorithms had been chosen upon their capability of managing complicated schemes within consumer behavior data sets and their previous utilization in suggestion mechanisms and trust forecasting.

1. Decision Tree (DT)

The Decision Tree algorithm becomes a supervised machine intervention approach that is utilized on classification and regression problems. It divides the data into smaller groups depending on the most important features inducing changes in the object of interest an indicator of consumer trust. The points of each node of the tree denote a decision, given some feature and the branches denote the results of that decision. The algorithm is recursively used to constantly subdivide the data till terminal nodes (or leaves) are gained at the cost of representing the predicted trust level [6]. The fact that the use of Decision Trees can be interpreted and the visual nature of the decision- making process is also appreciated as it is more accessible to understand which part of AI personalization affects consumer trust the most. They, however, are susceptible to overfitting but this may be slowed down by pruning processes.

2. Random Forest (RF)

Random Forest This is an ensemble learning model, which consists of a collection of Decision Trees combined together to make predictions and enhance accuracy along with decreasing overfitting. The trees are trained on a random subsample of the data set and each node is selected after choosing the feature random thereby providing diversity to the trees. The last one is made based on the majority voting on classification errors or averaging on regression errors. Random Forest is resistant to noise and outliers and it could be effectively used with high-dimensional data, which means that it is applicable to the study of complicated consumer behavior in cross-cultural settings [7]. It also gives feature importance indicators that are used to detail the important drivers of trust in AI personalization.

3. Support Vector Machine (SVM)

Support Vector Machine is a supervised learning algorithm used for classification by finding the optimal hyperplane that separates data points of different classes with maximum margin. SVM is particularly effective in high-dimensional spaces and for datasets where the number of features exceeds the number of samples. In this study, SVM was used to classify consumer trust levels based on multiple behavioral and demographic features. Kernel functions, such as radial basis function (RBF), were applied to capture non-linear relationships between personalization features and trust outcomes [8]. SVM provides strong generalization ability, making it suitable for cross-cultural datasets where patterns may vary between groups.

4. K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN)

K-Nearest Neighbors is a non-parametric, instance-based learning algorithm that predicts the class of a sample based on the majority class of its k-nearest neighbors in the feature space. Distance metrics such as Euclidean distance are used to determine similarity. KNN is intuitive and can adapt to complex patterns without assuming an underlying distribution. In this study, KNN was applied to predict consumer trust by comparing new consumer profiles to existing patterns of trust across cultural groups [9]. Despite its simplicity, KNN can be computationally intensive for large datasets, but it provides reliable predictions when cultural differences are taken into account and the dataset is normalized.

Table 1: Sample Demographic Distribution of Respondents

To analyze how AI-based personalization influences the trust of consumers within each specific cultural setting, a sequence of experiments had to be performed in terms of the four machine learning algorithms Decision Tree (DT), random forest (RF), Support vector machine (SVM) and the k nearest neighbors (KNN). The data sample comprised of 1,200 participants in the USA, Japan, Germany and India. This data was split into training and testing set done using an 80:20 split [10]. Preprocessing involved the normalization of the numerical values, encoding of the categorical values and the missing values. Each of the models was executed in Python (Scikit-learn) to use it.

Figure 1: “Assessing artificial intelligence's impact on e-customer loyalty”

Experiment 1: Algorithm Performance Across Cultures

The initial experiment was used to compare the predictive potential of the four algorithms to model the consumer trust. F1-score, accuracy and precision and recall were measured. Random Forest performed well ahead of the rest of the models with a greater accuracy of affecting of 85 percent, SVM (82 percent), Decision tree (78 percent) and KNN (77 percent). The ensemble method of the technique created at random forest was capable of capturing interaction complexities between personalization features and indicators of trust thus it was the most trustworthy predictor among cultural cohorts [11].

Table 1: Algorithm Performance Metrics

Experiment 2: Cross-Cultural Trust Analysis

Then, freputed trust scores were examined according to culture. Measurement of trust was on a scale of 1 5 depending on its responses during the survey. There was a higher trust score of Western countries (4.3 and 4.1) and the Eastern countries (Japan and India) had moderate scores (3.9 and 3.8). It was revealed that the personalized product recommendations and customized emails performed best in Western cultures and the privacy guarantee and information transparency were of more significance in Eastern ones [12].

Figure 2: “Conceptual Framework”

Table 2: Predicted Trust Scores by Country and Algorithm

Experiment 3: Feature Importance Analysis

The feature importance was analyzed with increment of random forest in prediction of consumer trust. It also had such characteristics as personalized suggestions, chat support, email customization, assurance of data security, and past purchase satisfaction. The recommendations based on personal preferences had the highest burden (0.28) then there was data privacy (0.24) and AI chat support (0.20). Email personalization and post purchase satisfaction were not the most important but were also important [13].

Table 3: Feature Importance for Consumer Trust Prediction (Random Forest)

Experiment 4: Comparison of Algorithm Predictions Across Cultures

The results of individual algorithms were compared in four countries. Random Forest was always the most accurate in all cultures with the highest rate being 87% in USA and 84% in Germany. Decision Tree and KNN had moderate results as they were less accurate in Japan and India thus depicting their inferiority in capturing delicate cultural variations in trust manifestations [14]. SVM was stable to performance but marginally underperforming than random forest.

Figure 3: “The Impact of AI-Personalized Recommendations on Clicking Intentions”

Table 4: Accuracy of Algorithms by Country

Experiment 5: Trust Prediction Comparison With Baseline

Lastly, there was a comparison between predicted trust scores and baseline survey scores computations to determine the efficacy of AI personalization to improve trust. In all the cultures, Random Forest outperformed the baseline survey averages by 0.2-0.3 average on the predicted trust, which is sign of its ability to predict trust [27]. Decision tree and KNN developed trust prediction higher by smaller margins whereas SVM realized moderate improvement.

Table 5: Predicted vs Baseline Trust Scores

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

The experimentation highlights several vital findings. First, one can say that Rand Forest was always superior because the other algorithms, as well as such influence, demonstrates that this algorithm could be used to handle cross-cultural differences that are also complex in generating trust. KNN and Decision Tree were also not as effective in Eastern cultures and this may be why simple models are assigned problems when it comes to the generalization of small patterns of behavior. The mixed solution was also given by SVM but not that accurate as Random Forest [28].

Figure 4: “Artificial Intelligence-Driven Recommendations”

Second, the aspects of the personalization such as personalized recommendations, the assured privacy of information, and the chatbot turned out to be the strongest predictors of trust. This is what brings out the two-faceted AI characteristic of ensuring a superior user experience and simultaneously checking other problems associated with trust [29]. Thirdly, differences existed due to cultures, with the western population being more responsive to convenience, a personalized offer and fewer Eastern customers being responsive to privacy and disclosure. This outcome suggests that the global online systems should be adjusted with cultural-biased methods of personalization. Finally, the prediction of trust and the baseline survey outcomes were discussed and demonstrated that AI-related practices could benefit achieving a level of between 0.3 scores in enhancing trust prediction which affirmed AI-driven personalization effectiveness [30]. The analysis of the algorithms, features, and cultural situations at large reveals the feasibility of AI application in creating credible and culturally tailored digital experiences.

In this study, the role of AI-induced personalization in consumer trust along the dimensions of the different cultural contexts was examined giving a comprehensive overview of the effect of personalized digital experience in purchasing behaviour. The paper used four machine learning models, including Decision Tree, Random Forest, Support Vector Model and K-Nearest Neighbors models to model trust prediction using the results of a survey consisting of 1,200 respondents in USA, Germany, Japan, and India. The findings proved that the Random Forest was the most successful because it managed to achieve the highest forecast accuracy and reliability when predicting consumer trust. Individual recommendations, AI-supported chat support, and data privacy were listed as the most prominent factors of trust, and differences based on various cultures were also demonstrated in the importance of the mentioned features. The convenience and customized recommendations were better accepted by Western consumers especially in the USA and Germany, but by the Eastern counterparts especially in Japan and India the priority was on privacy, transparency and ethical AI measure. In comparison with baseline trust scales, experienced trust improvement up to 0.3 points indicated that AI personalization has the capacity to positively affect trust, which demonstrates the practical value of the properly established AI strategies. The results of the studies demonstrated the significance of the culturally sensitive design of AI personalisation and laid alternatives on the fact that global platforms need to reconcile both purposes of providing so relevant experiences and preserving the trust of consumers. On the whole, the work is close to the knowledge of the implementation of AI in influencing the development of trust in online purchases and provides practical recommendations on how companies can adopt personalization strategies, increase customer satisfaction, and ensure practices of responsible AI use in the framework of other cultures.

1. Almutairi, B., et al. “Reimagining Marketing Campaigns in Kuwait: A Theoretical Exploration of Digital Transformation Through a Business Intelligence Lens.” International Journal of Business Intelligence Research, vol. 16, no. 1, 2025, pp. 1–30.
2. Binlibdah, S. “Investigating the Role of Artificial Intelligence to Measure Consumer Efficiency: The Use of Strategic Communication and Personalized Media Content.” Journalism and Media, vol. 5, no. 3, 2024, p. 1142.
3. Canhoto, A. I., B. J. Keegan, and M. Ryzhikh. “Snakes and Ladders: Unpacking the Personalisation-Privacy Paradox in the Context of AI-Enabled Personalisation in the Physical Retail Environment.” Information Systems Frontiers, vol. 26, no. 3, 2024, pp. 1005–1024.
4. Chan-Olmsted, S., H. Chen, and Hyehyun J. K. “In Smartness We Trust: Consumer Experience, Smart Device Personalization and Privacy Balance.” The Journal of Consumer Marketing, vol. 41, no. 6, 2024, pp. 597–609.
5. Chen, D. “Optimizing Fashion and Textile Marketing Through AI-Powered Content Generation and English Language Personalization for International Branding.” Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences, vol. 10, no. 1, 2025.
6. Chen, J., et al. “A Systematic Review of User Attitudes Toward GenAI: Influencing Factors and Industry Perspectives.” Journal of Intelligence, vol. 13, no. 7, 2025, p. 78.
7. Elshaer, I. A., et al. “From Asymmetry to Satisfaction: The Dynamic Role of Perceived Value and Trust to Boost Customer Satisfaction in the Tourism Industry.” Tourism and Hospitality, vol. 6, no. 2, 2025, p. 68.
8. Erdős, F., et al. “The Rise of AI in Tourism - A Systematic Literature Review.” Geo Journal of Tourism and Geosites, suppl. 2, vol. 60, 2025, pp. 1254–1265.
9. Evangelos, C., A. G. Antonios, and I. S. Ioanna. “The Evolution of Digital Tourism Marketing: From Hashtags to AI-Immersive Journeys in the Metaverse Era.” Sustainability, vol. 17, no. 13, 2025, p. 6016.
10. Fangni, L., and H. Wang. “Unveiling the Mechanics of AI Adoption in Journalism: A Multi-Factorial Exploration of Expectation Confirmation, Knowledge Management, and Sustainable Use.” Journalism and Media, vol. 6, no. 2, 2025, p. 65.
11. Gao, Y., and J. Liang. “The Impact of AI-Powered Try-On Technology on Online Consumers’ Impulsive Buying Intention: The Moderating Role of Brand Trust.” Sustainability, vol. 17, no. 7, 2025, p. 2789.
12. Garcia-y-Garcia, E., F. Rején-Guardia, and L. B. Sánchez-Baltasar. “Data-Driven Marketing Image: Scale Development and Validation.” Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios, vol. 27, no. 2, 2025, pp. 1–21.
13. Gerlich, M. “The Shifting Influence: Comparing AI Tools and Human Influencers in Consumer Decision-Making.” AI, vol. 6, no. 1, 2025, p. 11.
14. Herriger, C., et al. “Context-Contingent Privacy Concerns and Exploration of the Privacy Paradox in the Age of AI, Augmented Reality, Big Data, and the Internet of Things: Systematic Review.” Journal of Medical Internet Research, vol. 27, 2025.
15. Hossain, S., M. Fernando, and S. Akter. “The Influence of Artificial Intelligence-Driven Capabilities on Responsible Leadership: A Future Research Agenda.” Journal of Management and Organization, vol. 31, no. 5, 2025, pp. 2360–2384.
16. Huang, X., et al. “Exploring Chinese Millennials’ Purchase Intentions for Clothing with AI-Generated Patterns from Premium Fashion Brands: An Integration of the Theory of Planned Behavior and Perceived Value Perspective.” Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, vol. 20, no. 2, 2025, p. 141.
17. Iršič, M., and T. Gjergjek. “The Influence of Benefits and Trust on Consumers’ Attitudes Towards Artificial Intelligence: The Moderating Role of Threats.” Organizacija, vol. 58, no. 2, 2025, pp. 138–157.
18. Kabir, Z. S., and K. Kang. “An Interaction–Engagement–Intention Model: How Artificial Intelligence and Augmented Reality Transform the User–Platform Interaction Paradigm.” Electronics, vol. 14, no. 12, 2025, p. 2499.
19. Khan, Syed Md F. A., and Y. M. Shehawy. “Perceived AI Consumer-Driven Decision Integrity: Assessing Mediating Effect of Cognitive Load and Response Bias.” Technologies, vol. 13, no. 8, 2025, p. 374.
20. Lazar, M., and E. İ. Develi. “Customer Relationship Management (CRM) - A Cross Cultural Comparison Between Türkiye and Morocco.” Journal of International Trade, Logistics and Law, vol. 10, no. 2, 2024, pp. 62–80.
21. Leonidas, T., A. T. Alexandra, and C. K. Christos. “Interactive Viral Marketing Through Big Data Analytics, Influencer Networks, AI Integration, and Ethical Dimensions.” Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, vol. 20, no. 2, 2025, p. 115.
22. Li, C., et al. “Measuring Customer Experience in AI Contexts: A Scale Development.” Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, vol. 20, no. 1, 2025, p. 31.
23. Liu, H., and J. Liang. “A Study on the Factors Influencing Chinese Costume Consumers Utilizing Live Streaming Platforms to Purchase Products: A Case Study of Douyin.” Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, vol. 20, no. 1, 2025, p. 38.
24. Lopes, J. M., I. Massano-Cardoso, and C. Granadeiro. “Festivals in Age of AI: Smarter Crowds, Happier Fans.” Tourism and Hospitality, vol. 6, no. 1, 2025, p. 35.
25. Luu, T., D. Hoang, and P. M. Nguyen. “The Influence of E-Service Quality on Food Online Purchase Intention in Vietnam.” Journal of Economic Development, vol. 48, no. 3, 2023, pp. 131–155.
26. Marinao-Artigas, E., et al. “Online Shopping Experience Drives Online Shopping Intention: Role of Omnichannel Shopping Trust.” Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios, vol. 27, no. 1, 2025, pp. 1–24.
27. Mehmood, K., et al. “Piloting Personalization Research Through Data-Rich Environments: A Literature Review and Future Research Agenda.” Journal of Service Management, vol. 34, no. 3, 2023, pp. 520–552.
28. Meng, H., X. Lu, and J. Xu. “The Impact of Chatbot Response Strategies and Emojis Usage on Customers’ Purchase Intention: The Mediating Roles of Psychological Distance and Performance Expectancy.” Behavioral Sciences, vol. 15, no. 2, 2025, p. 117.
29. Ofosu-Ampong, K., et al. “The Impact of AI-Driven Marketing Personalisation on Consumer Purchase Decisions: A Mixed-Methods Analysis.” Journal of Digital Art and Humanities, vol. 6, no. 1, 2025, pp. 59–76.
30. Bunea, Ovidiu-Iulian, et al. “The Next-Generation Shopper: A Study of Generation-Z Perceptions of AI in Online Shopping.” Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, vol. 19, no. 4, 2024, p. 2605.