WEIRD? Institutions and consumers’ perceptions of artificial intelligence in 31 countries

IF 4.7 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Bronwyn Howell
{"title":"WEIRD? Institutions and consumers’ perceptions of artificial intelligence in 31 countries","authors":"Bronwyn Howell","doi":"10.1007/s00146-025-02217-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>A survey of perceptions of Artificial Intelligence in 31 countries in 2023 (Ipsos in Global Views on A.I. 2023. https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-07/Ipsos%20Global%20AI%202023%20Report-WEB_0.pdf. Accessed 17 May 2024, 2023) yields significantly less positive perceptions of the new technology in developed western economies than in emerging and non-western economies. This could reflect citizens in non-Western countries perceiving machines (computers) and algorithms differently from those in Western countries, or that a more positive outlook in countries with weak democratic institutions comes from a preference for algorithmic precision over inconsistent and/or corrupt regulation and decision-making. However, it could also be reflecting the different psychology of “WEIRD” (Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, Democratic) countries. Regressing the survey responses against measures of the “WEIRD” dimensions, we find that reported understanding of, willingness to trust, and anticipation of change due to AI applications are consistently negatively correlated to a country’s education levels (E), and average income per capita (R). The sophistication of democratic institutions (D) and “Westernness” (W), both alone and in combination with the other factors, have statistically significant negative effects on the percentage of the respondents in any given country having positive perceptions of AI and its prospects. The consistency of the negative relationship between the sophistication of democratic institutions country-level perceptions of AI brings into question the role of regulation of the new technology. WEIRD societies are presumed to rely on democratic institutions for assurances they can transact safely with strangers. Institutions thus substitute for the trust non-WEIRD societies place in friends, family and close community contacts when transacting. Third-party (and notably government) assurances in the context of uncertainty created by the emergence of new AI technologies arguably condition perceptions of the safety of these technologies through the presence (or absence) of regulations governing their implementation and use. Different perceptions amongst European countries compared to other western counterparts to perceptions of data privacy support the contention that the mere presence of AI regulation may be sufficient to alter perceptions in WEIRD societies, regardless of whether the regulations are necessary or even effective in increasing user safety. This has implications for interpreting and responding to political pressure to regulate new technologies in WEIRD countries.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47165,"journal":{"name":"AI & Society","volume":"40 6","pages":"4409 - 4431"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00146-025-02217-w.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AI & Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00146-025-02217-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A survey of perceptions of Artificial Intelligence in 31 countries in 2023 (Ipsos in Global Views on A.I. 2023. https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-07/Ipsos%20Global%20AI%202023%20Report-WEB_0.pdf. Accessed 17 May 2024, 2023) yields significantly less positive perceptions of the new technology in developed western economies than in emerging and non-western economies. This could reflect citizens in non-Western countries perceiving machines (computers) and algorithms differently from those in Western countries, or that a more positive outlook in countries with weak democratic institutions comes from a preference for algorithmic precision over inconsistent and/or corrupt regulation and decision-making. However, it could also be reflecting the different psychology of “WEIRD” (Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, Democratic) countries. Regressing the survey responses against measures of the “WEIRD” dimensions, we find that reported understanding of, willingness to trust, and anticipation of change due to AI applications are consistently negatively correlated to a country’s education levels (E), and average income per capita (R). The sophistication of democratic institutions (D) and “Westernness” (W), both alone and in combination with the other factors, have statistically significant negative effects on the percentage of the respondents in any given country having positive perceptions of AI and its prospects. The consistency of the negative relationship between the sophistication of democratic institutions country-level perceptions of AI brings into question the role of regulation of the new technology. WEIRD societies are presumed to rely on democratic institutions for assurances they can transact safely with strangers. Institutions thus substitute for the trust non-WEIRD societies place in friends, family and close community contacts when transacting. Third-party (and notably government) assurances in the context of uncertainty created by the emergence of new AI technologies arguably condition perceptions of the safety of these technologies through the presence (or absence) of regulations governing their implementation and use. Different perceptions amongst European countries compared to other western counterparts to perceptions of data privacy support the contention that the mere presence of AI regulation may be sufficient to alter perceptions in WEIRD societies, regardless of whether the regulations are necessary or even effective in increasing user safety. This has implications for interpreting and responding to political pressure to regulate new technologies in WEIRD countries.

奇怪吗?31个国家的机构和消费者对人工智能的看法
关于2023年31个国家对人工智能的看法的调查(Ipsos,《全球人工智能展望2023》)。https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2023-07/Ipsos%20Global%20AI%202023%20Report-WEB_0.pdf。获取日期:2024年5月17日,2023年),西方发达经济体对新技术的积极看法明显低于新兴经济体和非西方经济体。这可能反映出非西方国家的公民对机器(计算机)和算法的看法与西方国家的不同,或者在民主制度薄弱的国家,更积极的前景来自于对算法精度的偏好,而不是不一致和/或腐败的监管和决策。然而,这也可能反映了“WEIRD”(西方,受过教育的,工业化的,富裕的,民主的)国家的不同心理。将调查结果与“WEIRD”维度的测量结果进行回归,我们发现报告的对人工智能应用的理解、信任意愿和对变化的预期与一个国家的教育水平(E)和人均收入(R)始终呈负相关。民主制度的复杂性(D)和“西方化”(W),单独或与其他因素结合,对任何特定国家对人工智能及其前景持积极看法的受访者的百分比产生统计上显著的负面影响。民主制度的复杂性与国家层面对人工智能的看法之间的负相关关系的一致性,使人们对这项新技术的监管作用产生了质疑。怪异社会被认为依赖于民主制度来保证他们可以安全地与陌生人打交道。因此,制度取代了非怪异社会在交易时对朋友、家人和亲密社区联系人的信任。在新人工智能技术出现所带来的不确定性背景下,第三方(尤其是政府)的保证可以说是通过存在(或不存在)管理其实施和使用的法规来限制对这些技术安全性的看法。与其他西方国家相比,欧洲国家对数据隐私的看法不同,这支持了这样一种观点,即人工智能监管的存在可能足以改变怪异社会的看法,无论这些监管是否必要,甚至是否有效地提高用户安全。这对解释和回应在WEIRD国家监管新技术的政治压力有影响。
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
AI & Society
AI & Society COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE-
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
20.00%
发文量
257
期刊介绍: AI & Society: Knowledge, Culture and Communication, is an International Journal publishing refereed scholarly articles, position papers, debates, short communications, and reviews of books and other publications. Established in 1987, the Journal focuses on societal issues including the design, use, management, and policy of information, communications and new media technologies, with a particular emphasis on cultural, social, cognitive, economic, ethical, and philosophical implications. AI & Society has a broad scope and is strongly interdisciplinary. We welcome contributions and participation from researchers and practitioners in a variety of fields including information technologies, humanities, social sciences, arts and sciences. This includes broader societal and cultural impacts, for example on governance, security, sustainability, identity, inclusion, working life, corporate and community welfare, and well-being of people. Co-authored articles from diverse disciplines are encouraged. AI & Society seeks to promote an understanding of the potential, transformative impacts and critical consequences of pervasive technology for societies. Technological innovations, including new sciences such as biotech, nanotech and neuroscience, offer a great potential for societies, but also pose existential risk. Rooted in the human-centred tradition of science and technology, the Journal acts as a catalyst, promoter and facilitator of engagement with diversity of voices and over-the-horizon issues of arts, science, technology and society. AI & Society expects that, in keeping with the ethos of the journal, submissions should provide a substantial and explicit argument on the societal dimension of research, particularly the benefits, impacts and implications for society. This may include factors such as trust, biases, privacy, reliability, responsibility, and competence of AI systems. Such arguments should be validated by critical comment on current research in this area. Curmudgeon Corner will retain its opinionated ethos. The journal is in three parts: a) full length scholarly articles; b) strategic ideas, critical reviews and reflections; c) Student Forum is for emerging researchers and new voices to communicate their ongoing research to the wider academic community, mentored by the Journal Advisory Board; Book Reviews and News; Curmudgeon Corner for the opinionated. Papers in the Original Section may include original papers, which are underpinned by theoretical, methodological, conceptual or philosophical foundations. The Open Forum Section may include strategic ideas, critical reviews and potential implications for society of current research. Network Research Section papers make substantial contributions to theoretical and methodological foundations within societal domains. These will be multi-authored papers that include a summary of the contribution of each author to the paper. Original, Open Forum and Network papers are peer reviewed. The Student Forum Section may include theoretical, methodological, and application orientations of ongoing research including case studies, as well as, contextual action research experiences. Papers in this section are normally single-authored and are also formally reviewed. Curmudgeon Corner is a short opinionated column on trends in technology, arts, science and society, commenting emphatically on issues of concern to the research community and wider society. Normal word length: Original and Network Articles 10k, Open Forum 8k, Student Forum 6k, Curmudgeon 1k. The exception to the co-author limit of Original and Open Forum (4), Network (10), Student (3) and Curmudgeon (2) articles will be considered for their special contributions. Please do not send your submissions by email but use the "Submit manuscript" button. NOTE TO AUTHORS: The Journal expects its authors to include, in their submissions: a) An acknowledgement of the pre-accept/pre-publication versions of their manuscripts on non-commercial and academic sites. b) Images: obtain permissions from the copyright holder/original sources. c) Formal permission from their ethics committees when conducting studies with people.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信