Facial recognition technology has been introduced into various aspects of social life, yet it has raised concerns over its infringement of civil liberties and biases against minorities. This study investigates how three ideological dimensions—social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, and libertarianism—shape facial recognition acceptance. First, two surveys of crowdsourced workers (N = 891 and 587) demonstrated that the acceptance of facial recognition applications is positively associated with right-wing authoritarianism and negatively with libertarianism, whereas social dominance orientation shows little influence. Second, an experiment (N = 496) exposed participants to information about demographic biases in facial recognition applications. This message produced more opposition to facial recognition and this effect largely was not moderated by the three ideological dimensions. In summary, individuals’ endorsement of various ideologies predicts their acceptance of facial recognition technology, but messages about algorithm biases in facial recognition can still shape their attitudes regardless of the preexisting ideologies.
AllumNSturgisPTabouraziDBrunton-SmithI (2008) Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science17(1): 35–54.
3.
AminABBednarczykRARayCEMelchioriKJGrahamJHuntsingerJR, et al. (2017) Association of moral values with vaccine hesitancy. Nature Human Behaviour1(12): 873–880.
4.
BerinskyAJHuberGALenzGS (2012) Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis20(3): 351–368.
5.
BrombergDECharbonneauÉSmithA (2020) Public support for facial recognition via police body-worn cameras: Findings from a list experiment. Government Information Quarterly37(1): 101415.
6.
BuolamwiniJGebruT (2018) Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In: Proceedings of the 1st Conference on fairness, accountability and transparency (PMLR), vol. 81, New York, NY, 23–24 February, pp. 77–91. New York, NY: ACM.
7.
ChomaBLHodsonG (2017) Right-wing ideology: Positive (and negative) relations to threat. Social Cognition35(4): 415–432.
8.
ChomaBLHanochYGummerumMHodsonG (2013) Relations between risk perceptions and socio-political ideology are domain- and ideology-dependent. Personality and Individual Differences54(1): 29–34.
9.
ClaessensSFischerKChaudhuriASibleyCGAtkinsonQD (2020) The dual evolutionary foundations of political ideology. Nature Human Behaviour4(4): 336–345.
10.
CliffordSJewellRMWaggonerPD (2015) Are samples drawn from Mechanical Turk valid for research on political ideology?Research & Politics2(4): 1–9.
11.
CohrsJCKielmannSMaesJMoschnerB (2005) Effects of right-wing authoritarianism and threat from terrorism on restriction of civil liberties. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy5(1): 263–276.
12.
DixonGHartPSClarkeCO’DonnellNHHmielowskiJ (2020) What drives support for self-driving car technology in the United States?Journal of Risk Research23(3): 275–287.
13.
DuckittJ (2006) Differential effects of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation on outgroup attitudes and their mediation by threat from and competitiveness to outgroups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin32(5): 684–696.
14.
DuckittJSibleyCG (2009) Right wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and the dimensions of generalized prejudice. European Journal of Personality21(2): 113–130.
15.
DuckittJBizumicBKraussSWHeledE (2010) A tripartite approach to right-wing authoritarianism: The authoritarianism–conservatism–traditionalism model. Political Psychology31(5): 685–715.
16.
FeinbergMWillerR (2011) Apocalypse soon? Dire messages reduce belief in global warming by contradicting just-world beliefs. Psychological Science22(1): 34–38.
GauchatG (2012) Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review77(2): 167–187.
19.
HamiltonLCSaffordTG (2021) Elite cues and the rapid decline in trust in science agencies on COVID-19. Sociological Perspectives64(5): 988–1011.
20.
HargittaiEShawA (2020) Comparing internet experiences and prosociality in Amazon Mechanical Turk and population-based survey samples. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World6: 1–11.
21.
HartPSNisbetEC (2012) Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research39(6): 701–723.
22.
HartmanRODieckmannNFSprengerAMStastnyBJDeMarreeKG (2017) Modeling attitudes toward science: Development and validation of the credibility of science scale. Basic and Applied Social Psychology39(6): 358–371.
HoAKSidaniusJKteilyNSheehy-SkeffingtonJPrattoFHenkelKE, et al. (2015) The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO7 Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology109(6): 1003–1028.
JostJTFedericoCMNapierJL (2009) Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology60: 307–337.
30.
KahanDM (2012) Cultural cognition as a conception of the cultural theory of risk. In: RoeserSHillerbrandRSandinPPetersonM (eds) Handbook of Risk Theory. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 725–759.
31.
KahanDMBramanDSlovicPGastilJCohenG (2009) Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology4(2): 87–90.
32.
KahanDMPetersEWittlinMSlovicPOuelletteLLBramanD, et al. (2012) The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change2(10): 732–735.
33.
KantayyaS (2020) Coded Bias (Film). United States, China, United Kingdom: 7th Empire Media; Chicken & Egg Pictures; Ford Foundation—Just Films; ITVS International; Women Make Movies.
34.
KennedyRCliffordSBurleighTWaggonerPDJewellRWinterNJ (2020) The shape of and solutions to the MTurk quality crisis. Political Science Research and Methods8(4): 614–629.
35.
KerrJRWilsonMS (2021) Right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation predict rejection of science and scientists. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations24(4): 550–567.
36.
KossowskaMTrejtowiczMde LemusSBukowskiMVan HielAGoodwinR (2011) Relationships between right-wing authoritarianism, terrorism threat, and attitudes towards restrictions of civil rights: A comparison among four European countries. British Journal of Psychology102(2): 245–259.
37.
KostkaG (2019) China’s social credit systems and public opinion: Explaining high levels of approval. New Media & Society21(7): 1565–1593.
38.
KostkaGSteinackerLMeckelM (2021) Between security and convenience: Facial recognition technology in the eyes of citizens in China, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Public Understanding of Science30: 671–690.
39.
LambeJL (2004) Who wants to censor pornography and hate speech?Mass Communication & Society7(3): 279–299.
40.
LizotteMKWarrenT (2021) Understanding the appeal of libertarianism: Gender and race differences in the endorsement of libertarian principles. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy21: 640–659.
41.
MalkaALelkesYSotoCJ (2019) Are cultural and economic conservatism positively correlated? A large-scale cross-national test. British Journal of Political Science49(3): 1045–1069.
42.
MansonJH (2020) Right-wing authoritarianism, left-wing authoritarianism, and pandemic-mitigation authoritarianism. Personality and Individual Differences167: 110251.
43.
MohapatraS (2016) Use of facial recognition technology for medical purposes: Balancing privacy with innovation. Pepperdine Law Review43(4): 1017–1064.
PengY (2020) The ideological divide in public perceptions of self-driving cars. Public Understanding of Science29(4): 436–451.
46.
PengY (2022a) Give me liberty or give me COVID-19: How social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, and libertarianism explain Americans’ reactions to COVID-19. Risk Analysis. Epub ahead of print 3 February. DOI: 10.1111/risa.13885.
47.
PengY (2022b) Politics of COVID-19 vaccine mandates: Left/right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and libertarianism. Personality and Individual Differences194: 111661.
48.
PetrescuRV (2019) Face recognition as a biometric application. Journal of Mechatronics and Robotics3: 237–257.
49.
PhillipsPJJiangFNarvekarAAyyadJO’TooleAJ (2011) An other-race effect for face recognition algorithms. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception8(2): 1–11.
SteinackerLMeckelMKostkaGBorthD (2020) Facial recognition: A cross-national survey on public acceptance, privacy, and discrimination. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.07275
57.
TeslerM (2018) Elite domination of public doubts about climate change (not evolution). Political Communication35(2): 306–326.
58.
Van NattaMChenPHerbekSJainRKastelicNKatzE, et al. (2020) The rise and regulation of thermal facial recognition technology during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Law and the Biosciences7: lsaa038.
59.
WoodTPorterE (2019) The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence. Political Behavior41(1): 135–163.
60.
ZengJChanCHSchäferMS (2020) Contested Chinese dreams of AI? Public discourse about artificial intelligence on WeChat and People’s Daily Online. Information, Communication & Society25: 319–340.
61.
ZhaoXRolfe-ReddingJKotcherJE (2016) Partisan differences in the relationship between newspaper coverage and concern over global warming. Public Understanding of Science25(5): 543–559.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
