Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/3605655.3605669acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesecceConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open access

Hope or Doom AI-ttitude? Examining the Impact of Gender, Age, and Cultural Differences on the Envisioned Future Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Humankind

Published: 21 September 2023 Publication History

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become increasingly prominent in the contemporary digital era, affecting various aspects of daily life across the globe. Public perceptions of AI encompass a diverse array of individual attitudes toward this technology, ranging from favorable to unfavorable. Given the strong predictive relationship between attitudes toward technology and its acceptance and usage, it is vital to understand the factors that shape these attitudes. This article investigates the potential impact of sociodemographic factors, such as country (UK and USA), age, and gender differences, on future perspectives of AI, focusing on the extent to which individuals perceive AI technology as a threat to humans or as a positive for humanity. By comparing samples of respondents from the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (USA), the study aimed to understand how these factors might contribute to variations in attitudes toward AI across diverse cultural contexts. The study examined three main hypotheses, proposing that cultural context, age, and gender influence future perspectives of AI as a potential threat or benefit for humanity. The findings revealed distinct patterns of attitudes towards AI technology among respondents from the UK and the USA, as well as across gender groups. These results contribute to a better understanding of the factors shaping attitudes toward AI. In conclusion, the study underscores the importance of considering cultural context, age, and gender differences in shaping future perspectives on AI, potentially providing valuable insights for further research on the acceptability and deployment of this technology.

References

[1]
Fetzer, J. H. and Fetzer, J. H. What is Artificial Intelligence? Springer Netherlands, 1990.
[2]
Araujo, T., Helberger, N., Kruikemeier, S. and Vreese, C. H. In AI we trust? Perceptions about automated decision-making by artificial intelligence. AI & society, 35 (2020), 611–623.
[3]
O'Shaughnessy, M. R., Schiff, D. S., Varshney, L. R., Rozell, C. J. and Davenport, M. A. What governs attitudes toward artificial intelligence adoption and governance? Science and Public Policy, scac056 (2022).
[4]
Zhang, B. and Dafoe, A. Artificial intelligence: American attitudes and trends. City, 2019.
[5]
Hong, J. W., Cruz, I. and Williams, D. AI, you can drive my car: How we evaluate human drivers vs. self-driving cars. Computers in Human Behavior, 125 (2021), 106944.
[6]
Brill, T. M., Munoz, L. and Miller, R. J. Siri, Alexa, and other digital assistants: a study of customer satisfaction with artificial intelligence applications. Journal of Marketing Management, 35, 15-16 (2019), 1401–1436.
[7]
Sandoval, E. B., Mubin, O. and Obaid, M. Human robot interaction and fiction: A contradiction. Social Robotics: 6th International Conference, ICSR 2014, 6 (2014), 54–63.
[8]
Glas, D. F., Minato, T., Ishi, C. T., Kawahara, T. and Ishiguro, H. Erica: The erato intelligent conversational android. IEEE, City, 2016.
[9]
Hentout, A., Aouache, M., Maoudj, A. and Akli, I. Human–robot interaction in industrial collaborative robotics: a literature review of the decade 2008–2017. Advanced Robotics, 33, 15-16 (2019 2019), 764–799.
[10]
Manoharan, S. An improved safety algorithm for artificial intelligence enabled processors in self driving cars. Journal of artificial intelligence, 1, 02 (2019 2019), 95–104.
[11]
Johnson, K. B., Wei, W. Q., Weeraratne, D., Frisse, M. E., Misulis, K., Rhee, K. and Snowdon, J. L. Precision medicine, AI, and the future of personalized health care. Clinical and translational science, 14, 1 (2021), 86–93.
[12]
Tschang, F. T. and Almirall, E. Artificial intelligence as augmenting automation: Implications for employment. Academy of Management Perspectives, 35, 4 (2021), 642–659.
[13]
Fast, E. and Horvitz, E. February). Long-term trends in the public perception of artificial intelligence. Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, 31, 1) (2017).
[14]
Ambady, N. and Rosenthal, R. Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 111, 2 (1992), 256.
[15]
Krägeloh, C. U., Bharatharaj, J., Sasthan Kutty, S. K., Nirmala, P. R. and Huang, L. Questionnaires to measure acceptability of social robots: a critical review. Robotics, 8, 4 (2019), 88.
[16]
Heerink, M., Krose, B., Evers, V. and Wielinga, B. Measuring acceptance of an assistive social robot: a suggested toolkit. IEEE, City, 2009.
[17]
Peca, A., Coeckelbergh, M., Simut, R., Costescu, C., Pintea, S., David, D. and Vanderborght, B. Robot enhanced therapy for children with autism disorders: Measuring ethical acceptability. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 35, 2 (2016), 54-66.
[18]
Pennisi, P., Tonacci, A., Tartarisco, G., Billeci, L., Ruta, L., Gangemi, S. and Pioggia, G. Autism and social robotics: A systematic review. Autism Research, 9, 2 (2016), 165-183.
[19]
Nomura, T., Kanda, T. and Suzuki, T. Experimental investigation into influence of negative attitudes toward robots on human–robot interaction. Ai & Society, 20 (2006), 138-150.
[20]
Schepman, A. and Rodway, P. The General Attitudes towards Artificial Intelligence Scale (GAAIS): Confirmatory validation and associations with personality, corporate distrust, and general trust. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction (2022 2022), 1–18.
[21]
Sindermann, C., Sha, P., Zhou, M., Wernicke, J., Schmitt, H. S., Li, M. and Montag, C. Assessing the attitude towards artificial intelligence: Introduction of a short measure in German, Chinese, and English Language. KI-Künstliche intelligenz, 35 (2021), 109–118.
[22]
Kieslich, K., Lünich, M. and Marcinkowski, F. The Threats of Artificial Intelligence Scale (TAI) Development, Measurement and Test Over Three Application Domains. International Journal of Social Robotics, 13 (2021 2021), 1563–1577.
[23]
Grassini, S. Development and Validation of the AI Attitude Scale (AIAS-4): A Brief Measure of Attitude Toward Artificial Intelligence %U https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/f8hvy. City, 2023.
[24]
Kumar, S. and Choudhury, S. Humans, super humans, and super humanoids: debating Stephen Hawking's doomsday AI forecast. AI and Ethics (2022 2022), 1–10.
[25]
Bradley, P. Risk management standards and the active management of malicious intent in artificial superintelligence. AI & SOCIETY, 35, 2 (2020 2020), 319–328.
[26]
Bundy, A. Smart machines are not a threat to humanity. Communications of the ACM, 60, 2 (2017 2017), 40–42.
[27]
Eitel-Porter, R. Beyond the promise: implementing ethical AI. AI and Ethics, 1 (2021 2021), 73–80.
[28]
Nadimpalli, M. Artificial intelligence risks and benefits. International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, 6, 6 (2017 2017).
[29]
Yoo, S. J. and Huang, W. H. D. Comparison of Web 2.0 technology acceptance level based on cultural differences. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 14, 4 (2011), 241–252.
[30]
Lozano, I. A., Molina, J. M. and Gijón, C. Perception of artificial intelligence in Spain. Telematics and Informatics, 63 (2021), 101672.
[31]
Kelley, P. G., Yang, Y., Heldreth, C., Moessner, C., Sedley, A., Kramm, A. and Woodruff, A. Exciting, useful, worrying, futuristic: Public perception of artificial intelligence in 8 countries. City, 2021.
[32]
Gnambs, T. Attitudes towards emergent autonomous robots in Austria and Germany. e & i Elektrotechnik und Informationstechnik, 136, 7 (2019 2019), 296–300.
[33]
Srite, M. and Karahanna, E. The role of espoused national cultural values in technology acceptance. MIS quarterly (2006 2006), 679–704.
[34]
Broady, T., Chan, A. and Caputi, P. Comparison of older and younger adults' attitudes towards and abilities with computers: Implications for training and learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, 3 (2010), 473–485.
[35]
Lee, C., Ward, C., Raue, M., D'Ambrosio, L. and Coughlin, J. F. Age differences in acceptance of self-driving cars: A survey of perceptions and attitudes. Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population. Aging, Design and User Experience: Third International Conference, ITAP 2017, Held as Part of HCI International 2017, Part I 3 (2017), 3–13.
[36]
Elias, S. M., Smith, W. L. and Barney, C. E. Age as a moderator of attitude towards technology in the workplace: Work motivation and overall job satisfaction. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31, 5 (2012), 453–467.
[37]
Tully, C. J. Growing up in technological worlds: How modern technologies shape the everyday lives of young people. Bulletin of science, technology & society, 23, 6 (2003), 444–456.
[38]
Park, J. and Woo, S. E. Who likes artificial intelligence? Personality predictors of attitudes toward artificial intelligence. The Journal of Psychology, 156, 1 (2022), 68–94.
[39]
Durndell, A. and Haag, Z. Computer self efficacy, computer anxiety, attitudes towards the Internet and reported experience with the Internet, by gender, in an East European sample. Computers in human behavior, 18, 5 (2002 2002), 521–535.
[40]
Ray, C. M., Sormunen, C. and Harris, T. M. Men's and women's attitudes toward computer technology: A comparison. Office Systems Research Journal, 17 (1999), 1–8.
[41]
Goswami, A. and Dutta, S. Gender differences in technology usage—A literature review. Open Journal of Business and Management, 4, 1 (2015 2015), 51–59.
[42]
Brynjolfsson, E. and McAfee, A. The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. W. W. Norton & Company, 2014.
[43]
Loh, H. W., Ooi, C. P., Seoni, S., Barua, P. D., Molinari, F. and Acharya, U. R. Application of explainable artificial intelligence for healthcare: A systematic review of the last decade (2011–2022. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 107161 (2022).
[44]
Xia, Q., Chiu, T. K., Lee, M., Sanusi, I. T., Dai, Y. and Chai, C. S. A self-determination theory (SDT) design approach for inclusive and diverse artificial intelligence (AI) education. Computers & Education, 189 (2022), 104582.
[45]
Yang, W. Artificial Intelligence education for young children: Why, what, and how in curriculum design and implementation. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3 (2022 2022), 100061.
[46]
Jones, C. I. The past and future of economic growth: A semi-endogenous perspective. Annual Review of Economics, 14 (2022), 125–152.
[47]
Matytsin, D. E., Dzedik, V. A., Makeeva, G. A. and Boldyreva, S. B. Smart” outsourcing in support of the humanization of entrepreneurship in the artificial intelligence economy. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10, 1 (2023), 1–8.
[48]
Barrett, A. M. and Baum, S. D. A model of pathways to artificial superintelligence catastrophe for risk and decision analysis. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 29, 2 (2017), 397-414.
[49]
Covello, V. T. The perception of technological risks: A literature review. Technological forecasting and social change, 23, 4 (1983), 285-297.
[50]
Stoet, G. PsyToolkit - A software package for programming psychological experiments using Linux. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 4 (2010 2010), 1096–1104.
[51]
Stoet, G. PsyToolkit: A novel web-based method for running online questionnaires and reaction-time experiments. Teaching of Psychology, 44, 1 (2017 2017), 24–31.
[52]
Persson, A., Laaksoharju, M. and Koga, H. We mostly think alike: Individual differences in attitude towards AI in Sweden and Japan. The Review of Socionetwork Strategies, 15, 1 (2021), 123-142.
[53]
Cai, Z., Fan, X. and Du, J. Gender and attitudes toward technology use: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 105 (2017), 1-13.
[54]
Nadarzynski, T., Bayley, J., Llewellyn, C., Kidsley, S. and Graham, C. A. Acceptability of artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled chatbots, video consultations and live webchats as online platforms for sexual health advice. BMJ sexual & reproductive health, 46, 3 (2020), 210-217.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)A Psychometric Validation of the PAILQ-6: Perceived Artificial Intelligence Literacy QuestionnaireProceedings of the 13th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/3679318.3685359(1-10)Online publication date: 13-Oct-2024
  • (2024)A Quantitative Investigation of Graduate Student Perceptions of Human-Generated and AI-Generated Reviews in a Cyber-Social Learning PlatformTrust and Inclusion in AI-Mediated Education10.1007/978-3-031-64487-0_10(213-234)Online publication date: 28-Sep-2024

Index Terms

  1. Hope or Doom AI-ttitude? Examining the Impact of Gender, Age, and Cultural Differences on the Envisioned Future Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Humankind
        Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

        Information & Contributors

        Information

        Published In

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        ECCE '23: Proceedings of the European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics 2023
        September 2023
        189 pages
        ISBN:9798400708756
        DOI:10.1145/3605655
        This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        Published: 21 September 2023

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • Research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Conference

        ECCE 2023
        ECCE 2023: European Conference in Cognitive Ergonomics
        September 19 - 22, 2023
        Swansea, United Kingdom

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate 56 of 91 submissions, 62%

        Contributors

        Other Metrics

        Bibliometrics & Citations

        Bibliometrics

        Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)1,595
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)142
        Reflects downloads up to 01 Oct 2024

        Other Metrics

        Citations

        Cited By

        View all
        • (2024)A Psychometric Validation of the PAILQ-6: Perceived Artificial Intelligence Literacy QuestionnaireProceedings of the 13th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/3679318.3685359(1-10)Online publication date: 13-Oct-2024
        • (2024)A Quantitative Investigation of Graduate Student Perceptions of Human-Generated and AI-Generated Reviews in a Cyber-Social Learning PlatformTrust and Inclusion in AI-Mediated Education10.1007/978-3-031-64487-0_10(213-234)Online publication date: 28-Sep-2024

        View Options

        View options

        PDF

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format.

        HTML Format

        Get Access

        Login options

        Media

        Figures

        Other

        Tables

        Share

        Share

        Share this Publication link

        Share on social media