厌恶还是欣赏人工智能?能力-个性化框架和元分析综述。

IF 17.3 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY
Xin Qin, Xiang Zhou, Chen Chen, Dongyuan Wu, Hansen Zhou, Xiaowei Dong, Limei Cao, Jackson G Lu
{"title":"厌恶还是欣赏人工智能?能力-个性化框架和元分析综述。","authors":"Xin Qin, Xiang Zhou, Chen Chen, Dongyuan Wu, Hansen Zhou, Xiaowei Dong, Limei Cao, Jackson G Lu","doi":"10.1037/bul0000477","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming human life. While some studies find that people prefer humans over AI (AI aversion), others find the opposite (AI appreciation). To reconcile these conflicting findings, we introduce the Capability-Personalization Framework. This theoretical framework posits that when deciding between AI and humans in a context, individuals focus on two dimensions: (a) perceived capability of AI and (b) perceived necessity for personalization. We propose that AI appreciation occurs when (a) AI is perceived as more capable than humans and (b) personalization is perceived as unnecessary in a given decision context, whereas AI aversion occurs when these conditions are not met. Our Capability-Personalization Framework is substantiated by a meta-analysis of 442 effect sizes from 163 studies (N = 82,078): AI appreciation occurs (d = 0.27, 95% CI [0.17, 0.37]) when AI is perceived as more capable than humans and personalization is perceived as unnecessary in a given decision context; otherwise, AI aversion occurs (d = -0.50, 95% CI [-0.63, -0.37]). Moderation analyses suggest that AI appreciation is more pronounced for tangible robots (vs. intangible algorithms), for attitudinal (vs. behavioral) outcomes, in between-subjects (vs. within-subjects) study designs, and in low unemployment countries, while AI aversion is more pronounced in countries with high levels of education and internet use. Overall, our integrative framework and meta-analysis advance knowledge about AI-human preferences and offer valuable implications for AI developers and users. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20854,"journal":{"name":"Psychological bulletin","volume":"151 5","pages":"580-599"},"PeriodicalIF":17.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"AI aversion or appreciation? A capability-personalization framework and a meta-analytic review.\",\"authors\":\"Xin Qin, Xiang Zhou, Chen Chen, Dongyuan Wu, Hansen Zhou, Xiaowei Dong, Limei Cao, Jackson G Lu\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/bul0000477\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming human life. While some studies find that people prefer humans over AI (AI aversion), others find the opposite (AI appreciation). To reconcile these conflicting findings, we introduce the Capability-Personalization Framework. This theoretical framework posits that when deciding between AI and humans in a context, individuals focus on two dimensions: (a) perceived capability of AI and (b) perceived necessity for personalization. We propose that AI appreciation occurs when (a) AI is perceived as more capable than humans and (b) personalization is perceived as unnecessary in a given decision context, whereas AI aversion occurs when these conditions are not met. Our Capability-Personalization Framework is substantiated by a meta-analysis of 442 effect sizes from 163 studies (N = 82,078): AI appreciation occurs (d = 0.27, 95% CI [0.17, 0.37]) when AI is perceived as more capable than humans and personalization is perceived as unnecessary in a given decision context; otherwise, AI aversion occurs (d = -0.50, 95% CI [-0.63, -0.37]). Moderation analyses suggest that AI appreciation is more pronounced for tangible robots (vs. intangible algorithms), for attitudinal (vs. behavioral) outcomes, in between-subjects (vs. within-subjects) study designs, and in low unemployment countries, while AI aversion is more pronounced in countries with high levels of education and internet use. Overall, our integrative framework and meta-analysis advance knowledge about AI-human preferences and offer valuable implications for AI developers and users. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20854,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological bulletin\",\"volume\":\"151 5\",\"pages\":\"580-599\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":17.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological bulletin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000477\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000477","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人工智能(AI)正在改变人类的生活。虽然一些研究发现人们更喜欢人类而不是人工智能(厌恶人工智能),但另一些研究发现相反(欣赏人工智能)。为了调和这些相互矛盾的发现,我们引入了能力-个性化框架。该理论框架认为,当在特定环境中选择人工智能和人类时,个体关注两个维度:(a)人工智能的感知能力和(b)个性化的感知必要性。我们提出,当(a)人工智能被认为比人类更有能力,(b)在给定的决策环境中,个性化被认为是不必要的,就会出现对人工智能的欣赏,而当这些条件不满足时,就会出现对人工智能的厌恶。我们的能力-个性化框架通过对163项研究(N = 82,078)的442个效应大小的荟萃分析得到证实:当人工智能被认为比人类更有能力,而在给定的决策环境中,个性化被认为是不必要的,人工智能就会被欣赏(d = 0.27, 95% CI [0.17, 0.37]);否则,就会出现AI厌恶(d = -0.50, 95% CI[-0.63, -0.37])。适度分析表明,在有形机器人(相对于无形算法)、态度(相对于行为)结果、主体之间(相对于主体内部)研究设计以及低失业率国家,对人工智能的赞赏更为明显,而在教育水平和互联网使用水平较高的国家,对人工智能的厌恶更为明显。总的来说,我们的综合框架和元分析促进了对人工智能-人类偏好的了解,并为人工智能开发者和用户提供了有价值的启示。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
AI aversion or appreciation? A capability-personalization framework and a meta-analytic review.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming human life. While some studies find that people prefer humans over AI (AI aversion), others find the opposite (AI appreciation). To reconcile these conflicting findings, we introduce the Capability-Personalization Framework. This theoretical framework posits that when deciding between AI and humans in a context, individuals focus on two dimensions: (a) perceived capability of AI and (b) perceived necessity for personalization. We propose that AI appreciation occurs when (a) AI is perceived as more capable than humans and (b) personalization is perceived as unnecessary in a given decision context, whereas AI aversion occurs when these conditions are not met. Our Capability-Personalization Framework is substantiated by a meta-analysis of 442 effect sizes from 163 studies (N = 82,078): AI appreciation occurs (d = 0.27, 95% CI [0.17, 0.37]) when AI is perceived as more capable than humans and personalization is perceived as unnecessary in a given decision context; otherwise, AI aversion occurs (d = -0.50, 95% CI [-0.63, -0.37]). Moderation analyses suggest that AI appreciation is more pronounced for tangible robots (vs. intangible algorithms), for attitudinal (vs. behavioral) outcomes, in between-subjects (vs. within-subjects) study designs, and in low unemployment countries, while AI aversion is more pronounced in countries with high levels of education and internet use. Overall, our integrative framework and meta-analysis advance knowledge about AI-human preferences and offer valuable implications for AI developers and users. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

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
Psychological bulletin
Psychological bulletin 医学-心理学
CiteScore
33.60
自引率
0.90%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Psychological Bulletin publishes syntheses of research in scientific psychology. Research syntheses seek to summarize past research by drawing overall conclusions from many separate investigations that address related or identical hypotheses. A research synthesis typically presents the authors' assessments: -of the state of knowledge concerning the relations of interest; -of critical assessments of the strengths and weaknesses in past research; -of important issues that research has left unresolved, thereby directing future research so it can yield a maximum amount of new information.
×
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