IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/pkeb8.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

What governs attitudes toward artificial intelligence adoption and governance?

Author

Listed:
  • O'Shaughnessy, Matthew
  • Schiff, Daniel

    (Georgia Institute of Technology)

  • Varshney, Lav R.
  • Rozell, Christopher
  • Davenport, Mark

Abstract

Designing effective and inclusive governance and public communication strategies for artificial intelligence (AI) requires understanding how stakeholders reason about its use and governance. We examine underlying factors and mechanisms that drive attitudes toward the use and governance of AI across six policy-relevant applications using structural equation modeling and surveys of both U.S. adults (N=3524) and technology workers enrolled in an online computer science master’s degree program (N=425). We find that the cultural values of individualism, egalitarianism, general risk aversion, and techno-skepticism are important drivers of AI attitudes. Perceived benefit drives attitudes toward AI use, but not its governance. Experts hold more nuanced views than the public, and are more supportive of AI use but not its regulation. Drawing on these findings, we discuss challenges and opportunities for participatory AI governance, and we recommend that trustworthy AI governance be emphasized as strongly as trustworthy AI.

Suggested Citation

  • O'Shaughnessy, Matthew & Schiff, Daniel & Varshney, Lav R. & Rozell, Christopher & Davenport, Mark, 2021. "What governs attitudes toward artificial intelligence adoption and governance?," OSF Preprints pkeb8, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:pkeb8
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/pkeb8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/61b928f8196330050313d3d3/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/pkeb8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ortwin Renn & Christina Benighaus, 2013. "Perception of technological risk: insights from research and lessons for risk communication and management," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3-4), pages 293-313, April.
    2. James N. Druckman & Mary C. McGrath, 2019. "The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 9(2), pages 111-119, February.
    3. Ellen M. Peters & Burt Burraston & C. K. Mertz, 2004. "An Emotion‐Based Model of Risk Perception and Stigma Susceptibility: Cognitive Appraisals of Emotion, Affective Reactivity, Worldviews, and Risk Perceptions in the Generation of Technological Stigma," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1349-1367, October.
    4. Dan M. Kahan & Donald Braman & John Gastil & Paul Slovic & C. K. Mertz, 2007. "Culture and Identity‐Protective Cognition: Explaining the White‐Male Effect in Risk Perception," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(3), pages 465-505, November.
    5. Dan M. Kahan & Hank Jenkins-Smith & Donald Braman, 2011. "Cultural cognition of scientific consensus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 147-174, February.
    6. Matthew J. Hornsey & Emily A. Harris & Kelly S. Fielding, 2018. "Relationships among conspiratorial beliefs, conservatism and climate scepticism across nations," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 8(7), pages 614-620, July.
    7. Mavrommati, Georgia & Borsuk, Mark E. & Kreiley, Allison I. & Larosee, Christopher & Rogers, Shannon & Burford, Klancey & Howarth, Richard B., 2021. "A methodological framework for understanding shared social values in deliberative valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    8. Graham Dixon & P. Sol Hart & Christopher Clarke & Nicole H. O’Donnell & Jay Hmielowski, 2020. "What drives support for self-driving car technology in the United States?," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 275-287, March.
    9. Rosseel, Yves, 2012. "lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 48(i02).
    10. Azim Shariff & Jean-François Bonnefon & Iyad Rahwan, 2017. "Psychological roadblocks to the adoption of self-driving vehicles," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 1(10), pages 694-696, October.
    11. Ellis, Richard J. & Thompson, Fred, 1997. "Culture and the Environment in the Pacific Northwest," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 91(4), pages 885-897, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jessica E. Hughes & James D. Sauer & Aaron Drummond & Laura E. Brumby & Matthew A. Palmer, 2023. "Endorsement of scientific inquiry promotes better evaluation of climate policy evidence," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(6), pages 1-20, June.
    2. Branden B. Johnson & Brendon Swedlow, 2021. "Cultural Theory's Contributions to Risk Analysis: A Thematic Review with Directions and Resources for Further Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 429-455, March.
    3. Paul R. Hindsley & O. Ashton Morgan, 2022. "The Role of Cultural Worldviews in Willingness to Pay for Environmental Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 81(2), pages 243-269, February.
    4. Baiardi, Donatella & Morana, Claudio, 2021. "Climate change awareness: Empirical evidence for the European Union," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    5. Lars Meyer-Waarden & Julien Cloarec, 2022. "“Baby, you can drive my car”: Psychological antecedents that drive consumers’ adoption of AI-powered autonomous vehicles," Post-Print hal-03385891, HAL.
    6. Dan M. Kahan & Hank Jenkins-Smith & Tor Tarantola & Carol L. Silva & Donald Braman, 2015. "Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 658(1), pages 192-222, March.
    7. Ulf J. J. Hahnel & Christian Mumenthaler & Tobia Spampatti & Tobias Brosch, 2020. "Ideology as Filter: Motivated Information Processing and Decision-Making in the Energy Domain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-19, October.
    8. Laura Bakkensen & Quynh Nguyen & Toan Phan & Paul Schuler, 2023. "Charting the Course: How Does Information about Sea Level Rise Affect the Willingness to Migrate?," Working Paper 23-09, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond.
    9. Eleonora Alabrese & Francesco Capozza & Prashant Garg, 2024. "Politicized Scientists: Credibility Cost of Political Expression on Twitter," CESifo Working Paper Series 11254, CESifo.
    10. Cafferata, Alessia & Dávila-Fernández, Marwil J. & Sordi, Serena, 2021. "Seeing what can(not) be seen: Confirmation bias, employment dynamics and climate change," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 567-586.
    11. Hemesath, Sebastian & Tepe, Markus, 2023. "Framing the approval to test self-driving cars on public roads. The effect of safety and competitiveness on citizens' agreement," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    12. Ulf J. J. Hahnel & Christian Mumenthaler & Tobias Brosch, 2020. "Emotional foundations of the public climate change divide," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 161(1), pages 9-19, July.
    13. Branden B. Johnson & Brendon Swedlow, 2024. "Scale reliability of alternative cultural theory survey measures," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 527-557, February.
    14. Creed Tumlison & Geoboo Song, 2019. "Cultural Values, Trust, and Benefit‐Risk Perceptions of Hydraulic Fracturing: A Comparative Analysis of Policy Elites and the General Public," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(3), pages 511-534, March.
    15. Michael Carolan, 2020. "Filtering perceptions of climate change and biotechnology: values and views among Colorado farmers and ranchers," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 121-139, March.
    16. Welsch, Heinz, 2021. "How climate-friendly behavior relates to moral identity and identity-protective cognition: Evidence from the European social surveys," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    17. Mark W. Neff & Zander Albertson, 2020. "Does higher education prepare students to bridge divides in today’s democracy?," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 10(2), pages 196-204, June.
    18. Clulow, Z. & Reiner, D. M., 2022. "How to distinguish climate sceptics, antivaxxers, and persistent sceptics: Evidence from a multi-country survey of public attitudes," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 2209, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    19. Anne K. Armstrong & Marianne E. Krasny, 2020. "Tracing Paths from Research to Practice in Climate Change Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-21, June.
    20. Katherine Mintz, 2017. "Arguments and actors in recent debates over US genetically modified organisms (GMOs)," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 7(1), pages 1-9, March.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:pkeb8. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.