Using artificial intelligence (AI)? Risk and opportunity perception of AI predict people’s willingness to use AI

IF 2.4 4区 管理学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Rebekka Schwesig, Irina Brich, Jürgen Buder, Markus Huff, Nadia Said
{"title":"Using artificial intelligence (AI)? Risk and opportunity perception of AI predict people’s willingness to use AI","authors":"Rebekka Schwesig, Irina Brich, Jürgen Buder, Markus Huff, Nadia Said","doi":"10.1080/13669877.2023.2249927","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AbstractSurveys worldwide show that the public perceives artificial intelligence (AI) as a double-edged sword: A risk and an opportunity. However, how this ambiguous perception of AI is related to people’s willingness to use AI-based applications has yet to be investigated. To this end, two online experiments were conducted, including two samples, N = 246 and N = 495 (quota-sample, representative for age and gender). As hypothesized, people’s risk-opportunity perception of AI applications correlated positively with the probability of using AI. Exploratory analyses indicated that people’s willingness to use AI significantly depended on the context of AI use (medicine vs. transport vs. media vs. psychology). This research expands existing behavioral research by investigating ambiguous and not solely risk-taking behavior for different AI application contexts. Study results motivate the investigation of causal-effect relations and underline the need to understand risk and opportunity perception stability across different contexts of AI use.Keywords: Risk perceptionopportunity perceptionartificial intelligencebehaviorconfidence Ethical approvalAPA ethical standards were followed in the conduct of both studies reported in this article and informed consent was collected from the participants at the beginning of the study. Both studies were approved by the ethics committee of the Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien, Tübingen.Authors’ contributionsNS, IB, JB, and MH developed the research idea. NS administered the whole project and developed the study concepts. Both, RS and NS developed the methodology of the studies and analyzed the data. RS was responsible for data collection and data visualization. RS and NS wrote the original draft. All authors were responsible for reviewing and editing the original draft. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript for submission.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Data availability statementData of both studies are freely accessible under http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.20589597 (Schwesig and Said 2021, dataset). The analysis code (R) that produces all results and figures of this article are available at http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.20589597. Before data collection, both experimental studies were preregistered: https://aspredicted.org/CVC_CRQ (study 1) and https://aspredicted.org/SR3_8Q3 (study 2).Notes1 Note, that we preregistered that people’s AI knowledge works as a moderator on the association of risk and opportunity perception and behavior towards AI as hypothesis 2 for the second study.2 Note, that for study 2 there was a significant main effect of knowledge when we did not control for age, gender, and education, and entering knowledge as main effect only: Χ2Study2(2) = 4.36, p = .037, OR =7.42, 95% CI [1.12, 49.37].3 Note, that for study 2 there was a significant main effect of confidence when we did not control for age, gender, and education, and entering confidence as main effect only: Χ2Study2(2) = 5.12, p = .024, OR =1.22, 95% CI [1.02, 1.44].Additional informationFundingData collection was funded by internal funds of the Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien (Tübingen, Germany).","PeriodicalId":16975,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Risk Research","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Risk Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2023.2249927","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

AbstractSurveys worldwide show that the public perceives artificial intelligence (AI) as a double-edged sword: A risk and an opportunity. However, how this ambiguous perception of AI is related to people’s willingness to use AI-based applications has yet to be investigated. To this end, two online experiments were conducted, including two samples, N = 246 and N = 495 (quota-sample, representative for age and gender). As hypothesized, people’s risk-opportunity perception of AI applications correlated positively with the probability of using AI. Exploratory analyses indicated that people’s willingness to use AI significantly depended on the context of AI use (medicine vs. transport vs. media vs. psychology). This research expands existing behavioral research by investigating ambiguous and not solely risk-taking behavior for different AI application contexts. Study results motivate the investigation of causal-effect relations and underline the need to understand risk and opportunity perception stability across different contexts of AI use.Keywords: Risk perceptionopportunity perceptionartificial intelligencebehaviorconfidence Ethical approvalAPA ethical standards were followed in the conduct of both studies reported in this article and informed consent was collected from the participants at the beginning of the study. Both studies were approved by the ethics committee of the Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien, Tübingen.Authors’ contributionsNS, IB, JB, and MH developed the research idea. NS administered the whole project and developed the study concepts. Both, RS and NS developed the methodology of the studies and analyzed the data. RS was responsible for data collection and data visualization. RS and NS wrote the original draft. All authors were responsible for reviewing and editing the original draft. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript for submission.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Data availability statementData of both studies are freely accessible under http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.20589597 (Schwesig and Said 2021, dataset). The analysis code (R) that produces all results and figures of this article are available at http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.20589597. Before data collection, both experimental studies were preregistered: https://aspredicted.org/CVC_CRQ (study 1) and https://aspredicted.org/SR3_8Q3 (study 2).Notes1 Note, that we preregistered that people’s AI knowledge works as a moderator on the association of risk and opportunity perception and behavior towards AI as hypothesis 2 for the second study.2 Note, that for study 2 there was a significant main effect of knowledge when we did not control for age, gender, and education, and entering knowledge as main effect only: Χ2Study2(2) = 4.36, p = .037, OR =7.42, 95% CI [1.12, 49.37].3 Note, that for study 2 there was a significant main effect of confidence when we did not control for age, gender, and education, and entering confidence as main effect only: Χ2Study2(2) = 5.12, p = .024, OR =1.22, 95% CI [1.02, 1.44].Additional informationFundingData collection was funded by internal funds of the Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien (Tübingen, Germany).
使用人工智能?对人工智能的风险和机会感知预测了人们使用人工智能的意愿
摘要全球调查显示,公众认为人工智能(AI)是一把双刃剑:既是风险,也是机遇。然而,这种对人工智能的模糊认知与人们使用基于人工智能的应用程序的意愿之间的关系还有待调查。为此,我们进行了两次在线实验,包括两个样本,N = 246和N = 495(配额样本,年龄和性别具有代表性)。根据假设,人们对人工智能应用的风险-机会感知与使用人工智能的概率正相关。探索性分析表明,人们使用人工智能的意愿在很大程度上取决于人工智能使用的背景(医学、交通、媒体、心理学)。本研究扩展了现有的行为研究,研究了不同人工智能应用环境下的模糊行为,而不仅仅是冒险行为。研究结果激发了对因果关系的调查,并强调了在不同的人工智能使用背景下理解风险和机会感知稳定性的必要性。关键词:风险感知机会感知人工智能行为自信伦理认可本文报道的两项研究均遵循apa伦理标准,并在研究开始时收集了参与者的知情同意。这两项研究都得到了宾根市莱布尼茨研究所(Leibniz-Institut fr Wissensmedien)伦理委员会的批准。作者的贡献(sns, IB, JB, MH)发展了研究思路。NS管理了整个项目并制定了研究概念。RS和NS都制定了研究方法并分析了数据。RS负责数据收集和数据可视化。RS和NS撰写了最初的草案。所有作者都负责审稿和编辑初稿。所有作者都同意提交最终版本的手稿。披露声明作者未报告潜在的利益冲突。数据可用性声明两项研究的数据均可在http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.20589597 (Schwesig and Said 2021,数据集)免费获取。生成本文所有结果和图表的分析代码(R)可从http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.20589597获得。在收集数据之前,两项实验研究都进行了预注册:https://aspredicted.org/CVC_CRQ(研究1)和https://aspredicted.org/SR3_8Q3(研究2)。注1注意,我们在第二项研究的假设2中预注册了人们的人工智能知识在风险和机会感知与人工智能行为之间的关联中起调节作用注意,在研究2中,当我们不控制年龄、性别和教育程度,只将知识作为主要影响因素时,知识的主效应显著:Χ2Study2(2) = 4.36, p = 0.037, OR =7.42, 95% CI [1.12, 49.37] 3值得注意的是,在研究2中,当我们不控制年龄、性别和教育程度,并仅将信心作为主要影响因素时,信心的主效应显著:Χ2Study2(2) = 5.12, p = 0.024, OR =1.22, 95% CI[1.02, 1.44]。其他信息资金数据收集由德国宾根莱布尼茨研究所(Leibniz-Institut fr Wissensmedien)的内部资金资助。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Risk Research
Journal of Risk Research SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
12.20
自引率
5.90%
发文量
44
期刊介绍: The Journal of Risk Research is an international journal that publishes peer-reviewed theoretical and empirical research articles within the risk field from the areas of social, physical and health sciences and engineering, as well as articles related to decision making, regulation and policy issues in all disciplines. Articles will be published in English. The main aims of the Journal of Risk Research are to stimulate intellectual debate, to promote better risk management practices and to contribute to the development of risk management methodologies. Journal of Risk Research is the official journal of the Society for Risk Analysis Europe and the Society for Risk Analysis Japan.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信