CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 68Ethics and Social Impacts of AIAI in Service InteractionsSocial Robot Interaction and HRI

One AI Does Not Fit All: A Cluster Analysis of the Laypeople’s Perception of AI Roles

Open access
Kim, Taenyun, Molina, Maria D., Rheu, Minjin (MJ), Zhan, Emily S., Peng, Wei·2023·Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
DOI 10.1145/3544548.3581340
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) applications have become an integral part of our society. However, studying AI as one entity or studying idiosyncratic applications separately both have limitations. Thus, this study used computational methods to categorize ten different AI roles prevalent in our everyday life and compared laypeople’s perceptions of them using online survey data (N = 727). Based on theoretical factors related to the fundamental nature of AI, the principal component analysis revealed two dimensions that categorize AI: human involvement and AI autonomy. K-means clustering identified four AI role clusters: tools (low in both dimensions), servants (high human involvement and low AI autonomy), assistants (low human involvement and high AI autonomy), and mediators (high in both dimensions). Multivariate analyses of covariances revealed that people assessed AI mediators the most and AI tools the least favorably. Demographics also influenced laypeople’s assessments of AI. The implications of these results are discussed.

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 · 10.1145/3544548.3581340

Cites

150 of 150 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?

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: 58

  1. [4]4. Ritu Agarwal and Jayesh Prasad. 1999. Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new information technologies? Decision sciences 30, 2 (1999), 361-391.
  2. [22]22. Kieran Browne. 2022. Who (or what) is an AI Artist? Leonardo 55, 2 (2022), 130-134.
  3. [27]27. Ka Yin Chau, Michael Huen Sum Lam, Man Lai Cheung, Ejoe Kar Ho Tso, Stuart W Flint, David R Broom, Gary Tse, and Ka Yiu Lee. 2019. Smart technology for healthcare: Exploring the antecedents of adoption intention of healthcare wearable technology. Health psychology research 7, 1 (2019), 8099.
  4. [28]28. Cheng Chen, Carlina DiRusso, Hyun Yang, Rousi Shao, Michael Krieger, and S. Shyam Sundar. 2019. ALEXA, NETFLIX, AND SIRI: User Perceptions of AI-Driven Technologies. In AEJMC 2019 Conference. Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Toronto, Canada, 0.
  5. [29]29. Mengyuan Chen, Morris Siu-Yung, Ching Sing Chai, Chunping Zheng, and Moon-Young Park. 2021. A Pilot Study of Students' Behavioral Intention to Use AI for Language Learning in Higher Education. In 2021 International Symposium on Educational Technology (ISET). IEEE, Tokai, Nagoya, Japan, 182-184.
  6. [31]31. Zhi Cheng, Angelika Dimoka, and Paul A Pavlou. 2016. Context may be King, but generalizability is the Emperor! Journal of Information Technology 31, 3 (2016), 257-264.
  7. [32]32. Fanny Cheung and Wing-Fai Leung. 2021. Virtual influencer as celebrity en- dosers. University of South Florida M3 Center Publishing 5, 2021 (2021), 44.
  8. [36]36. Lee J Cronbach. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. psychometrika 16, 3 (1951), 297-334.
  9. [38]38. Fred D Davis, Richard P Bagozzi, and Paul R Warshaw. 1989. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management science 35, 8 (1989), 982-1003.
  10. [46]46. Karen T D'Alonzo. 2004. The Johnson-Neyman procedure as an alternative to ANCOVA. Western journal of nursing research 26, 7 (2004), 804-812.
  11. [58]58. Janet Fulk, Joseph Schmitz, Charles W Steinfield, et al. 1990. A social influence model of technology use. Organizations and communication technology 117 (1990), 140.
  12. [59]59. A Gailums et al. 2010. Office automation in rural area origins, development, and current situation.. In Applied information and communication technologies. Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference. Atlantis Press, Jelgava, Latvia, 116-123.
  13. [60]60. Esperanza García-Sancho, JM Salguero, and P Fernández-Berrocal. 2014. Rela- tionship between emotional intelligence and aggression: A systematic review. Aggression and violent behavior 19, 5 (2014), 584-591.
  14. [65]65. Margot J Goot, Laura Hafkamp, and Zoë Dankfort. 2020. Customer service chatbots: A qualitative interview study into the communication journey of customers. In International Workshop on Chatbot Research and Design. Springer, Virtual Event, 190-204.
  15. [68]68. Heather M Gray, Kurt Gray, and Daniel M Wegner. 2007. Dimensions of mind perception. science 315, 5812 (2007), 619-619.
  16. [75]75. Bert Heinrichs. 2022. Discrimination in the age of artificial intelligence. AI & society 37, 1 (2022), 143-154.
  17. [77]77. Ting Hin Ho, Dewi Tojib, and Yelena Tsarenko. 2020. Human staff vs. service robot vs. fellow customer: Does it matter who helps your customer following a service failure incident? International Journal of Hospitality Management 87 (2020), 102501.
  18. [80]80. Weiyin Hong, Frank KY Chan, James YL Thong, Lewis C Chasalow, and Gurpreet Dhillon. 2014. A framework and guidelines for context-specific theorizing in information systems research. Information systems research 25, 1 (2014), 111- 136.
  19. [84]84. Ryan Blake Jackson and Tom Williams. 2019. On perceived social and moral agency in natural language capable robots. In 2019 HRI workshop on the dark side of human-robot interaction. Jackson, RB, and Williams. ACM, Daegu, South Korea, 401-410.
  20. [88]88. Peter H Kahn, Nathan G Freier, Batya Friedman, Rachel L Severson, and Erika N Feldman. 2004. Social and moral relationships with robotic others?. In RO- MAN 2004. 13th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (IEEE Catalog No. 04TH8759). IEEE, Kurashiki, Okayama, Japan, 545-550.
  21. [96]96. Taenyun Kim and Hayeon Song. 2022. Communicating the Limitations of AI: The Effect of Message Framing and Ownership on Trust in Artificial Intelligence. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 0, 0 (2022), 1-11.
  22. [98]98. Nils Köbis and Luca D Mossink. 2021. Artificial intelligence versus Maya Angelou: Experimental evidence that people cannot differentiate AI-generated from human-written poetry. Computers in human behavior 114 (2021), 106553.
  23. [99]99. Joost N Kok, Egbert J Boers, Walter A Kosters, Peter Van der Putten, and Mannes Poel. 2009. Artificial intelligence: definition, trends, techniques, and cases. Artificial intelligence 1 (2009), 270-299.
  24. [100]100. Enikő Kubinyi, Ádám Miklósi, Frédéric Kaplan, Márta Gácsi, József Topál, and Vilmos Csányi. 2004. Social behaviour of dogs encountering AIBO, an animal- like robot in a neutral and in a feeding situation. Behavioural processes 65, 3 (2004), 231-239.
  25. [103]103. John D Lee and Katrina A See. 2004. Trust in automation: Designing for appro- priate reliance. Human factors 46, 1 (2004), 50-80.
  26. [107]107. Shane Legg, Marcus Hutter, et al. 2007. A collection of definitions of intelligence. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and applications 157 (2007), 17.
  27. [109]109. Yuli Liang, Seung-Hee Lee, and Jane E Workman. 2020. Implementation of artificial intelligence in fashion: Are consumers ready? Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 38, 1 (2020), 3-18.
  28. [111]111. Jennifer Marie Logg. 2017. Theory of machine: When do people rely on algo- rithms? Harvard Business School working paper series# 17-086 0, 0 (2017).
  29. [113]113. Vinh Nhat Lu, Jochen Wirtz, Werner H Kunz, Stefanie Paluch, Thorsten Gruber, Antje Martins, and Paul G Patterson. 2020. Service robots, customers and service employees: what can we learn from the academic literature and where are the gaps? Journal of Service Theory and Practice 30, 3 (2020), 361-391.
  30. [117]117. Carol Ann Maher, Courtney Rose Davis, Rachel Grace Curtis, Camille Elizabeth Short, and Karen Joy Murphy. 2020. A physical activity and diet program delivered by artificially intelligent virtual health coach: proof-of-concept study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth 8, 7 (2020), e17558.
  31. [119]119. James Manyika, Michael Chui, Jacques Bughin, Richard Dobbs, Peter Bisson, and Alex Marrs. 2013. Disruptive technologies: Advances that will transform life, business, and the global economy. Vol. 180. McKinsey Global Institute, San Francisco, CA, USA.
  32. [124]124. John D Mayer. 1997. What is emotional intelligence? P Salovey, DJ Sluyter,(Eds.), Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence. Basic Books, New York 3 (1997), 34.
  33. [133]133. D Douglas Miller and Eric W Brown. 2018. Artificial intelligence in medical practice: the question to the answer? The American journal of medicine 131, 2 (2018), 129-133.
  34. [142]142. Verena Nitsch and Michael Popp. 2014. Emotions in robot psychology. Biological cybernetics 108, 5 (2014), 621-629.
  35. [145]145. Jum C Nunnally. 1994. Psychometric Theory (third ed.). McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
  36. [147]147. Tim O'Reilly. 2017. WTF?: What's the Future and why It's Up to Us. Random House, New York, NY, USA.
  37. [151]151. Dorian Peters, Rafael A Calvo, and Richard M Ryan. 2018. Designing for moti- vation, engagement and wellbeing in digital experience. Frontiers in psychology 9 (2018), 797.
  38. [152]152. Robert A Peterson. 2000. A meta-analysis of variance accounted for and factor loadings in exploratory factor analysis. Marketing letters 11, 3 (2000), 261-275.
  39. [153]153. Florian Pethig and Julia Kroenung. 2022. Biased humans,(un) biased algorithms? Journal of Business Ethics 0 (2022), 1-16.
  40. [154]154. Erwin Prassler, Mario E Munich, Paolo Pirjanian, and Kazuhiro Kosuge. 2016. Domestic robotics. In Springer handbook of robotics. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1729-1758.
  41. [159]159. Ulrich Reiser, Theo Jacobs, Georg Arbeiter, Christopher Parlitz, and Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2013. Care-O-bot® 3-Vision of a robot butler. In Your virtual butler. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 97-116.
  42. [161]161. Denise M Rousseau and Yitzhak Fried. 2001. Location, location, location: Con- textualizing organizational research. Journal of organizational behavior (2001), 1-13.
  43. [164]164. Anna-Maria Seeger and Armin Heinzl. 2021. Chatbots often Fail! Can Anthro- pomorphic Design Mitigate Trust Loss in Conversational Agents for Customer Service?. In European Conference on Information Systems. AIS, Virtual Event.
  44. [167]167. Steven J Sherman and Eric Corty. 1984. Cognitive heuristics. In Handbook of social cognition, R. S. Jr. Wyer and T. K. Srull (Eds.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Berlin, Germany, 189--286.
  45. [181]181. Arwin Datumaya Wahyudi Sumari and Adang Suwandi Ahmad. 2016. Cogitive artificial intelligence: The fusion of artificial intelligence and information fusion. In 2016 International Symposium on Electronics and Smart Devices (ISESD). IEEE, Bandung, Indonesia, 1-6.
  46. [182]182. S Shyam Sundar. 2008. The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. MacArthur Foundation Digital Media and Learning Initiative, Cambridge, MA, USA.
  47. [184]184. S Shyam Sundar, Haiyan Jia, T Franklin Waddell, and Yan Huang. 2015. Toward a theory of interactive media effects (TIME) four models for explaining how interface features affect user psychology. Wiley Online Library, Hoboken, NJ, USA. 47-86 pages.
  48. [187]187. S Shyam Sundar and Sampada S Marathe. 2010. Personalization versus cus- tomization: The importance of agency, privacy, and power usage. Human communication research 36, 3 (2010), 298-322.
  49. [191]191. Neil Thurman, Judith Moeller, Natali Helberger, and Damian Trilling. 2019. My friends, editors, algorithms, and I: Examining audience attitudes to news selection. Digital journalism 7, 4 (2019), 447-469.
  50. [193]193. Jerry J Vaske, Jay Beaman, and Carly C Sponarski. 2017. Rethinking internal consistency in Cronbach's alpha. Leisure sciences 39, 2 (2017), 163-173.
  51. [194]194. Viswanath Venkatesh, James YL Thong, and Xin Xu. 2012. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS quarterly 36, 1 (2012), 157-178.
  52. [197]197. Shijun Wang and Ronald M Summers. 2012. Machine learning and radiology. Medical image analysis 16, 5 (2012), 933-951.
  53. [198]198. Anne L Washington. 2018. How to argue with an algorithm: Lessons from the COMPAS-ProPublica debate. Colo. Tech. LJ 17 (2018), 131.
  54. [203]203. Hyun Yang and S. Shyam Sundar. 2020. Machine heuristic: A concept explication and development of a scale.. In The 70th annual conference of the International Communication Association. ICA, Gold Coast, Australia, 0.
  55. [204]204. Hee-dong Yang and Youngjin Yoo. 2004. It's all about attitude: revisiting the technology acceptance model. Decision support systems 38, 1 (2004), 19-31.
  56. [206]206. Andrew W Young and A Mike Burton. 2018. Are we face experts? Trends in cognitive sciences 22, 2 (2018), 100-110.
  57. [208]208. Bo Zhang and S Shyam Sundar. 2019. Proactive vs. reactive personalization: Can customization of privacy enhance user experience? International journal of human-computer studies 128 (2019), 86-99.
  58. [210]210. H Zheng and J Yang. 2018. Functional Modules Sharing and Blockchain Based Validation in Office Automation Systems. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Vol. 466. IOP Publishing, Bristol, UK, 012007.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kim, T., Molina, M. D., Rheu, M. (., Zhan, E. S., & Peng, W.
Affiliations
  • Michigan State University (US)
  • Advertising and Public Relations, Michigan State University, United States
  • Loyola University Chicago (US)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2023-04-19
Pages
1-20
DOI
10.1145/3544548.3581340
OpenAlex
W4366588078
Semantic Scholar
26e1c3aee4f88949099202f49cd8b225f4470802
Cited by
68
References
150
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 4
FWCI
17.04
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.acm.org/publications/policies/copyright_policy#Background (vor)
Locations
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
Funders
Brandt Fellowship
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
Keywords
AI autonomy, AI as a tool, AI as mediator

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