Author
Listed:
- Mantello, Peter
- Ho, Tung Manh
Abstract
Human resource management technologies have moved from biometric surveillance to emotional artificial intelligence (AI) that monitor employees’ engagement and productivity, analyze video interviews and CVs of job applicants. The rise of the US$20 billion emotional AI industry will transform the future workplace. Yet, besides no international consensus on the principles or standards for such technologies, there is a lack of cross-cultural research on future job seekers’ attitude toward such use of AI technologies. This study collects a cross-sectional dataset of 1,015 survey responses of international students from 48 countries and 8 regions worldwide. A majority of the respondents (52%) are concerned about being managed by AI. Following the hypothetico-deductivist philosophy of science, we use the MCMC Hamiltonian approach and conduct a detailed comparison of 10 Bayesian network models with the PSIS-LOO method. We consistently find having a higher income, being male, majoring in business, and/or self-rated familiarity with AI correlate with a more positive view of emotional AI in the workplace. There is also a stark cross-cultural and cross-regional difference. Our analysis shows people from economically less developed regions (Africa, Oceania, Central Asia) tend to exhibit less concern for AI managers. And for East Asian countries, 64% of the Japanese, 56% of the South Korean, and 42% of the Chinese professed the trusting attitude. In contrast, an overwhelming majority of 75% of the European and Northern American possesses the worrying/neutral attitude toward being managed by AI. Regarding religion, Muslim students correlate with the most concern toward emotional AI in the workplace (β_Islam_Attitude’s mean =-0.16, sd =0.10; β_Buddhism_Attitude’s mean =-0.05, sd =0.07; β_Christian_Attitude ‘s mean = -0.10, sd= 0.09). When religiosity is higher, the correlation becomes stronger for Muslim and Buddhist students. This paper adds a cross-cultural perspective to the literature, which is currently skewed toward country-specific and profession-specific samples.
Suggested Citation
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:4exjs_v1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.