Cited by 135Ethics and Social Impacts of AIHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour

Adopting AI: how familiarity breeds both trust and contempt

Open access
Horowitz, Michael C., Kahn, Lauren, Macdonald, Julia, Schneider, Jacquelyn·2024·AI & SOCIETY

Abstract

Despite pronouncements about the inevitable diffusion of artificial intelligence and autonomous technologies, in practice, it is human behavior, not technology in a vacuum, that dictates how technology seeps into-and changes-societies. To better understand how human preferences shape technological adoption and the spread of AI-enabled autonomous technologies, we look at representative adult samples of US public opinion in 2018 and 2020 on the use of four types of autonomous technologies: vehicles, surgery, weapons, and cyber defense. By focusing on these four diverse uses of AI-enabled autonomy that span transportation, medicine, and national security, we exploit the inherent variation between these AI-enabled autonomous use cases. We find that those with familiarity and expertise with AI and similar technologies were more likely to support all of the autonomous applications we tested (except weapons) than those with a limited understanding of the technology. Individuals that had already delegated the act of driving using ride-share apps were also more positive about autonomous vehicles. However, familiarity cut both ways; individuals are also less likely to support AI-enabled technologies when applied directly to their life, especially if technology automates tasks they are already familiar with operating. Finally, we find that familiarity plays little role in support for AI-enabled military applications, for which opposition has slightly increased over time. Supplementary information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00146-023-01666-5.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00146-023-01666-5

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Ubiquitous performance degradation over multi-turn interactions is likely a reason for low uptake of AI systems, particularly with novice users who are less skilled at providing complete, detailed instructions from the onset of conversation.

    “Ubiquitous performance degradation over multi-turn interactions is likely a reason for low uptake of AI systems [73, 4, 28], particularly with novice users who are less skilled at providing complete, detailed instructions from the onset of conversation [87, 35].”

    From LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation (2025) · cites this paper as [28]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Austin D, Pier C, Mitchell J, Schattner P, Wade V, Pierce D, Klein B (2006) A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Aust Family Phys 35(5): 365–366. https://www.racgp.org.au/afpbackissues/2006/200605/200605austin.pdf 16680222
  2. Jasanoff S (ed) (2004). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, London
  3. Leyer M, Schneider S (2019) Me, you or ai? how do we feel about delegation. In: In Proceedings of the 27th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Stockholm & Uppsala, Sweden, June 8-14. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2019_rp/36

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Horowitz, M. C., Kahn, L., Macdonald, J., & Schneider, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Council on Foreign Relations (US)
  • University of Denver (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Horowitz, Michael C.
Venue
AI & SOCIETY
Published
2023-05-12
Volume
39
Issue
4
Pages
1721-1735
ISSN
  • 0951-5666 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-5655
OpenAlex
W4376255515
Cited by
135
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 51 · 2025: 58 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 2 · 2020: 1
FWCI
27.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • AI & Society (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
Air Force Office of Scientific Research (FA9550-18-1-0194)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
Keywords
artificial intelligence adoption, public opinion, trust in AI, technology familiarity, expertise, autonomous vehicles, autonomous surgery, autonomous weapons, cyber defense, artificial intelligence in warfare, national security, technology acceptance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review