人性化与人工智能技术:了解未来教育中的用户偏好

IF 9 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Aiping Shao , Zhi Lu , Bu Zhong , Stephanie Q. Liu , Wei Lu
{"title":"人性化与人工智能技术:了解未来教育中的用户偏好","authors":"Aiping Shao ,&nbsp;Zhi Lu ,&nbsp;Bu Zhong ,&nbsp;Stephanie Q. Liu ,&nbsp;Wei Lu","doi":"10.1016/j.chb.2024.108492","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>AI educational tool companies are fiercely competing to capture a larger share of the highly competitive AI-in-education market. A key strategy for success is to enhance user favorability and adoption. However, whether users prefer a human or an AI in the role of educator remains an important yet underexplored question. This research conducted three behavioral studies to examine user behavior toward AI-powered educational tools versus human educators, focusing on users' intentions to use these tools and their word-of-mouth (WOM) recommendations. Our findings show that users are more inclined to prefer human educators for their children and are more likely to share this preference with others (Studies 1 and 2). The underlying reason is that users perceive human educators as more capable than AI tools (Study 2). Study 3 further reveals that the type of problem-solving moderates the effect of the educational approach on both intentions to use and WOM. Specifically, users believe that AI tools are better suited for conventional problem-solving, while human educators are preferred for creative problem-solving. Our research is the first to investigate users' adoption of AI educational tools compared to human educators and the underlying mechanism. AI educational tool providers are advised to address users' negative perceptions and alleviate their concerns by demonstrating the competence of AI tools or by actively engaging with users to foster their competence in AI's capabilities. These novel insights contribute to the rapidly growing field of AI research and offer valuable implications for AI educational tools seeking success in the marketplace.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48471,"journal":{"name":"Computers in Human Behavior","volume":"164 ","pages":"Article 108492"},"PeriodicalIF":9.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Human touch vs. AI tech: Understanding user preferences in the future of education\",\"authors\":\"Aiping Shao ,&nbsp;Zhi Lu ,&nbsp;Bu Zhong ,&nbsp;Stephanie Q. Liu ,&nbsp;Wei Lu\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.chb.2024.108492\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>AI educational tool companies are fiercely competing to capture a larger share of the highly competitive AI-in-education market. A key strategy for success is to enhance user favorability and adoption. However, whether users prefer a human or an AI in the role of educator remains an important yet underexplored question. This research conducted three behavioral studies to examine user behavior toward AI-powered educational tools versus human educators, focusing on users' intentions to use these tools and their word-of-mouth (WOM) recommendations. Our findings show that users are more inclined to prefer human educators for their children and are more likely to share this preference with others (Studies 1 and 2). The underlying reason is that users perceive human educators as more capable than AI tools (Study 2). Study 3 further reveals that the type of problem-solving moderates the effect of the educational approach on both intentions to use and WOM. Specifically, users believe that AI tools are better suited for conventional problem-solving, while human educators are preferred for creative problem-solving. Our research is the first to investigate users' adoption of AI educational tools compared to human educators and the underlying mechanism. AI educational tool providers are advised to address users' negative perceptions and alleviate their concerns by demonstrating the competence of AI tools or by actively engaging with users to foster their competence in AI's capabilities. These novel insights contribute to the rapidly growing field of AI research and offer valuable implications for AI educational tools seeking success in the marketplace.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48471,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Computers in Human Behavior\",\"volume\":\"164 \",\"pages\":\"Article 108492\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Computers in Human Behavior\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563224003601\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computers in Human Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563224003601","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人工智能教育工具企业为了在竞争激烈的人工智能教育市场中占据更大的份额,展开了激烈的竞争。成功的关键策略是提高用户好感度和接受度。然而,用户更喜欢人类还是人工智能扮演教育者的角色,这仍然是一个重要但尚未得到充分探讨的问题。这项研究进行了三项行为研究,以检查用户对人工智能教育工具和人类教育者的行为,重点关注用户使用这些工具的意图和他们的口碑(WOM)推荐。我们的研究结果表明,用户更倾向于为他们的孩子选择人类教育工作者,并且更有可能与其他人分享这种偏好(研究1和2)。潜在的原因是用户认为人类教育工作者比人工智能工具更有能力(研究2)。研究3进一步揭示,解决问题的类型调节了教育方法对使用意图和口碑的影响。具体来说,用户认为人工智能工具更适合于传统的问题解决,而人类教育者更适合创造性的问题解决。我们的研究首次调查了用户对人工智能教育工具的采用情况,并将其与人类教育工作者进行了比较。建议人工智能教育工具提供商通过展示人工智能工具的能力或积极与用户互动以培养他们对人工智能能力的能力来解决用户的负面看法并减轻他们的担忧。这些新颖的见解有助于人工智能研究领域的快速发展,并为人工智能教育工具在市场上寻求成功提供了有价值的启示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Human touch vs. AI tech: Understanding user preferences in the future of education
AI educational tool companies are fiercely competing to capture a larger share of the highly competitive AI-in-education market. A key strategy for success is to enhance user favorability and adoption. However, whether users prefer a human or an AI in the role of educator remains an important yet underexplored question. This research conducted three behavioral studies to examine user behavior toward AI-powered educational tools versus human educators, focusing on users' intentions to use these tools and their word-of-mouth (WOM) recommendations. Our findings show that users are more inclined to prefer human educators for their children and are more likely to share this preference with others (Studies 1 and 2). The underlying reason is that users perceive human educators as more capable than AI tools (Study 2). Study 3 further reveals that the type of problem-solving moderates the effect of the educational approach on both intentions to use and WOM. Specifically, users believe that AI tools are better suited for conventional problem-solving, while human educators are preferred for creative problem-solving. Our research is the first to investigate users' adoption of AI educational tools compared to human educators and the underlying mechanism. AI educational tool providers are advised to address users' negative perceptions and alleviate their concerns by demonstrating the competence of AI tools or by actively engaging with users to foster their competence in AI's capabilities. These novel insights contribute to the rapidly growing field of AI research and offer valuable implications for AI educational tools seeking success in the marketplace.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
19.10
自引率
4.00%
发文量
381
审稿时长
40 days
期刊介绍: Computers in Human Behavior is a scholarly journal that explores the psychological aspects of computer use. It covers original theoretical works, research reports, literature reviews, and software and book reviews. The journal examines both the use of computers in psychology, psychiatry, and related fields, and the psychological impact of computer use on individuals, groups, and society. Articles discuss topics such as professional practice, training, research, human development, learning, cognition, personality, and social interactions. It focuses on human interactions with computers, considering the computer as a medium through which human behaviors are shaped and expressed. Professionals interested in the psychological aspects of computer use will find this journal valuable, even with limited knowledge of computers.
×
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