向AI自我披露:人们向AI和人类提供的个人信息是等量的

Elizabeth R. Merwin , Allen C. Hagen , Joseph R. Keebler , Chad Forbes
{"title":"向AI自我披露:人们向AI和人类提供的个人信息是等量的","authors":"Elizabeth R. Merwin ,&nbsp;Allen C. Hagen ,&nbsp;Joseph R. Keebler ,&nbsp;Chad Forbes","doi":"10.1016/j.chbah.2025.100180","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>As Artificial Intelligence (AI) increasingly emerges as a tool in therapeutic settings, understanding individuals' willingness to disclose personal information to AI versus humans is critical. This study examined how participants chose between self-disclosure-based and fact-based statements when responses were thought to be analyzed by an AI, a human researcher, or kept private. Participants completed forced-choice trials where they selected a self-disclosure-based or fact-based statement for one of the three agent conditions. Results showed that participants were statistically more likely to select self-disclosure over fact-based statements. Choice for self-disclosure rates were similar for the AI and human researcher, but significantly lower when responses were kept private. Multiple regression analyses revealed that individuals with a higher score on the negative attitude toward AI scale were less likely to choose Self-based statements across the three agent conditions. Overall, individuals were just as likely to choose to self-disclose to an AI as to a human researcher, and more likely to choose either agent over keeping self-disclosure information private. In addition, personality traits and attitudes toward AI were able to significantly influence disclosure choices. These findings provide insights into how individual differences impact the willingness to self-disclose information in human-AI interactions and offer a foundation for exploring the feasibility of AI as a clinical and social tool. Future research should expand on these results to further understand self-disclosure behaviors and evaluate AI's role in therapeutic settings.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100324,"journal":{"name":"Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans","volume":"5 ","pages":"Article 100180"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Self-disclosure to AI: People provide personal information to AI and humans equivalently\",\"authors\":\"Elizabeth R. Merwin ,&nbsp;Allen C. Hagen ,&nbsp;Joseph R. Keebler ,&nbsp;Chad Forbes\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.chbah.2025.100180\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>As Artificial Intelligence (AI) increasingly emerges as a tool in therapeutic settings, understanding individuals' willingness to disclose personal information to AI versus humans is critical. This study examined how participants chose between self-disclosure-based and fact-based statements when responses were thought to be analyzed by an AI, a human researcher, or kept private. Participants completed forced-choice trials where they selected a self-disclosure-based or fact-based statement for one of the three agent conditions. Results showed that participants were statistically more likely to select self-disclosure over fact-based statements. Choice for self-disclosure rates were similar for the AI and human researcher, but significantly lower when responses were kept private. Multiple regression analyses revealed that individuals with a higher score on the negative attitude toward AI scale were less likely to choose Self-based statements across the three agent conditions. Overall, individuals were just as likely to choose to self-disclose to an AI as to a human researcher, and more likely to choose either agent over keeping self-disclosure information private. In addition, personality traits and attitudes toward AI were able to significantly influence disclosure choices. These findings provide insights into how individual differences impact the willingness to self-disclose information in human-AI interactions and offer a foundation for exploring the feasibility of AI as a clinical and social tool. Future research should expand on these results to further understand self-disclosure behaviors and evaluate AI's role in therapeutic settings.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100324,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans\",\"volume\":\"5 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100180\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949882125000647\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949882125000647","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

随着人工智能(AI)越来越多地成为治疗环境中的一种工具,了解个人向人工智能和人类披露个人信息的意愿至关重要。这项研究调查了参与者在回答被人工智能、人类研究人员分析或保密时,如何在基于自我披露和基于事实的陈述之间做出选择。参与者完成了强迫选择试验,他们在三个代理条件中选择一个基于自我披露的陈述或基于事实的陈述。结果显示,在统计上,参与者更有可能选择自我披露而不是基于事实的陈述。人工智能研究人员和人类研究人员对自我披露率的选择相似,但当回答保密时,选择的比例明显较低。多元回归分析显示,在三个主体条件下,对人工智能的消极态度量表得分较高的个体更不可能选择基于自我的陈述。总的来说,个人选择向人工智能和人类研究人员自我披露的可能性是一样的,而且更有可能选择任何一个代理,而不是将自我披露的信息保密。此外,人格特质和对人工智能的态度能够显著影响披露选择。这些发现揭示了个体差异如何影响人类与人工智能互动中自我披露信息的意愿,并为探索人工智能作为临床和社交工具的可行性奠定了基础。未来的研究应该扩展这些结果,以进一步了解自我表露行为,并评估人工智能在治疗环境中的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Self-disclosure to AI: People provide personal information to AI and humans equivalently

Self-disclosure to AI: People provide personal information to AI and humans equivalently
As Artificial Intelligence (AI) increasingly emerges as a tool in therapeutic settings, understanding individuals' willingness to disclose personal information to AI versus humans is critical. This study examined how participants chose between self-disclosure-based and fact-based statements when responses were thought to be analyzed by an AI, a human researcher, or kept private. Participants completed forced-choice trials where they selected a self-disclosure-based or fact-based statement for one of the three agent conditions. Results showed that participants were statistically more likely to select self-disclosure over fact-based statements. Choice for self-disclosure rates were similar for the AI and human researcher, but significantly lower when responses were kept private. Multiple regression analyses revealed that individuals with a higher score on the negative attitude toward AI scale were less likely to choose Self-based statements across the three agent conditions. Overall, individuals were just as likely to choose to self-disclose to an AI as to a human researcher, and more likely to choose either agent over keeping self-disclosure information private. In addition, personality traits and attitudes toward AI were able to significantly influence disclosure choices. These findings provide insights into how individual differences impact the willingness to self-disclose information in human-AI interactions and offer a foundation for exploring the feasibility of AI as a clinical and social tool. Future research should expand on these results to further understand self-disclosure behaviors and evaluate AI's role in therapeutic settings.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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