Can AI Enhance People’s Support for Online Moderation and Their Openness to Dissimilar Political Views?

Author:

Wojcieszak Magdalena12ORCID,Thakur Arti1,Ferreira Gonçalves João Fernando3,Casas Andreu4,Menchen-Trevino Ericka5,Boon & Miriam6

Affiliation:

1. Department of Communication, University of California, Davis, CA 95618, USA

2. Amsterdam School of Communication Research, University of Amsterdam, 1018 WV Amsterdam, The Netherlands

3. Department of Media & Communication, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, 3000 DR, The Netherlands

4. Department of Communication Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

5. School of Communication, American University, Washington, DC 20016, USA

6. Amsterdam School of Communication Research , University of Amsterdam, 1018 WV Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Abstract

Abstract Although artificial intelligence is blamed for many societal challenges, it also has underexplored potential in political contexts online. We rely on six preregistered experiments in three countries (N = 6,728) to test the expectation that AI and AI-assisted humans would be perceived more favorably than humans (a) across various content moderation, generation, and recommendation scenarios and (b) when exposing individuals to counter-attitudinal political information. Contrary to the preregistered hypotheses, participants see human agents as more just than AI across the scenarios tested, with the exception of news recommendations. At the same time, participants are not more open to counter-attitudinal information attributed to AI rather than a human or an AI-assisted human. These findings, which—with minor variations—emerged across countries, scenarios, and issues, suggest that human intervention is preferred online and that people reject dissimilar information regardless of its source. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings. Lay Summary In the era of unprecedented political divides and misinformation, artificial intelligence (AI) and algorithms are often seen as the culprits. In contrast to these dominant narratives, we argued that AI might be seen as being less biased than a human in online political contexts. We relied on six preregistered experiments in three countries (the United Sates, Spain, Poland) to test whether internet users perceive AI and AI-assisted humans more favorably than simply humans; (a) across various distinct scenarios online, and (b) when exposing people to opposing political information on a range of contentious issues. Contrary to our expectations, human agents were consistently perceived more favorably than AI except when recommending news. These findings suggest that people prefer human intervention in most online political contexts.

Funder

Capes Foundation

US National Institutes of Health

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Computer Networks and Communications,Computer Science Applications

Reference78 articles.

1. Statistical modeling of harassment against Reddit moderators;Almerekhi;Companion Proceedings of the Web Conference,2020

2. In AI we trust? Perceptions about automated decision-making by artificial intelligence;Araujo;AI & Society,2020

3. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook;Bakshy;Science,2015

4. Who leads? Who follows? Measuring issue attention and agenda setting by legislators and the mass public using social media data;Barberá;American Political Science Review,2019

5. Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber?;Barberá;Psychological Science,2015

Cited by 24 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3