This study delves into the intricate relationships between attention to AI in news media, perceived AI explainability, trust in AI, and public support for autonomous passenger drones. Using structural equation modelling (N = 1,002), we found significant associations between perceived AI explainability and all trust dimensions (i.e., performance, purpose, process). Additionally, we revealed that the public acquired the perception of AI explainability through attention to AI in the news media. Consequently, we found that when the public pondered upon support for autonomous passenger drones, only the trust in performance dimension was relevant. Our findings underscore the importance of ensuring explainability for the public and highlight the pivotal role of news media in shaping public perceptions in emerging AI technologies. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
AliSAbuhmedTEl-SappaghSMuhammadKAlonso-MoralJMConfalonieriR, et al. (2023) Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI): What we know and what is left to attain trustworthy artificial intelligence. Information Fusion99: 101805.
3.
BesleyJC (2012) Does fairness matter in the context of anger about nuclear energy decision making?Risk Analysis32(1): 25–38.
4.
BesleyJC (2018) The National Science Foundation’s science and technology survey and support for science funding, 2006–2014. Public Understanding of Science27(1): 94–109.
5.
BrantnerCSaurweinF (2021) Covering technology risks and responsibility: Automation, artificial intelligence, robotics, and algorithms in the media. International Journal of Communication15: 5074–5098.
6.
BrundageMAvinSClarkJTonerHEckersleyPGarfinkelB, et al. (2018) The Malicious Use of Artificial Intelligence: Forecasting, Prevention, and Mitigation. Oxford: Future of Humanity Institute. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.07228
7.
CastelvecchiD (2016) Can we open the black box of AI?Nature538(7623): 20–23.
8.
CheungGWWangC (2017) Current approaches for assessing convergent and discriminant validity with SEM: Issues and solutions. Academy of Management Proceedings2017(1): 12706.
9.
CoolsHVan GorpBOpgenhaffenM (2024) Where exactly between utopia and dystopia? A framing analysis of AI and automation in US newspapers. Journalism25(1): 3–21.
10.
DongJChenSMiralinaghiMChenTLiPLabiS (2023) Why did the AI make that decision? Towards an explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) for autonomous driving systems. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies156: 104358.
11.
DošilovićFKBrčićMHlupićN (2018) Explainable artificial intelligence: A survey. In: 2018 41st international convention on information and communication technology, electronics and microelectronics (MIPRO), Opatija, 21–25 May, pp. 210–215. New York, NY: IEEE.
12.
DuffyAPrahlALingAY-H (2022) The inexorable rise of the robots: Trade journals’ framing of machinery in the workplace. Journalism23(2): 409–426.
13.
EhsanUTambwekarPChanLHarrisonBRiedlMO (2019) Automated rationale generation: A technique for explainable AI and its effects on human perceptions. In: Proceedings of the 24th international conference on intelligent user interfaces, Marina del Ray, CA, 17–20May, pp. 263–274. New York, NY: ACM.
14.
EvelandWPShahDVKwakN (2003) Assessing causality in the cognitive mediation model: A panel study of motivations, information processing, and learning during campaign 2000. Communication Research30(4): 359–386.
15.
GardnerGTGouldLC (1989) Public perceptions of the risks and benefits of technology. Risk Analysis9(2): 225–242.
16.
GhassemiMOakden-RaynerLBeamAL (2021) The false hope of current approaches to explainable artificial intelligence in health care. The Lancet Digital Health3(11): e745–e750.
17.
GliksonEWoolleyAW (2020) Human trust in artificial intelligence: Review of empirical research. Academy of Management Annals14(2): 627–660.
18.
GlomsrudJAØdegårdstuenASt ClairALSmogeliØ (2020) Trustworthy versus explainable AI in autonomous vessels. In: Proceedings of the international seminar on safety and security of autonomous vessels (ISSAV) and European STAMP workshop and conference (ESWC) (eds. Alejandro Valdez BandaOKujalaPHirdarisSBasnetS), Helsinki, 17–18 September, pp. 37–47. Warsaw: Sciendo.
19.
GohTJHoSS (2024) Trustworthiness of policymakers, technology developers, and media organizations involved in introducing AI for autonomous vehicles: A public perspective. Science Communication46: 584–618.
Government of the Republic of Singapore (2023) Singapore national AI strategy: AI for the public good for Singapore and the world. Available at: https://www.smartnation.gov.sg/nais/
HellierETuckerMNewboldLEdworthyJGriffinJCoulsonN (2012) The effects of label design characteristics on perceptions of genetically modified food. Journal of Risk Research15(5): 533–545.
25.
HermannJNierobischNArndtRKubullekA-KVan LeddenSDogangünA (2023) The impact of explanation detail in advanced driver assistance systems: User experience, acceptance, and age-related effects. Mensch Und Computer2023: 307–312.
26.
HilverdaFKuttschreuterMGiebelsE (2017) Social media mediated interaction with peers, experts and anonymous authors: Conversation partner and message framing effects on risk perception and sense-making of organic food. Food Quality and Preference56: 107–118.
27.
HoSSCheungJC (2024) Trust in artificial intelligence, trust in engineers, and news media: Factors shaping public perceptions of autonomous drones through UTAUT2. Technology in Society77: 102533.
28.
HoSSBrossardDScheufeleDA (2008) Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research20(2): 171–192.
29.
HoSSLooiJLeongADLeungYW (2019) Explicating factual and subjective science knowledge: Knowledge as a mediator of news attention and attitudes. Asian Journal of Communication29(1): 73–91.
30.
HoSSScheufeleDACorleyEA (2011) Value predispositions, mass media, and attitudes toward nanotechnology: The interplay of public and experts. Science Communication33(2): 167–200.
31.
HoSSScheufeleDACorleyEA (2013) Factors influencing public risk–Benefit considerations of nanotechnology: Assessing the effects of mass media, interpersonal communication, and elaborative processing. Public Understanding of Science22(5): 606–623.
32.
HoSSTanWChuahASFChuaPYYLauKXLChanJZA (2023) Feed for thought: Factors predicting public support for funding and labeling preferences of alternative aquafeed. Environmental Communication17: 891–909.
33.
HoSSXiongRChuahASF (2021) Heuristic cues as perceptual filters: Factors influencing public support for nuclear research reactor in Singapore. Energy Policy150: 112111.
34.
HoffKBashirM (2013) A theoretical model for trust in automated systems. In: CHI ’13 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, Paris, 27 April–2 May, pp. 115–120. New York, NY: ACM.
35.
HuLBentlerPM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal6(1): 1–55.
36.
JensenTKhanMMHAlbayramYFahimMAABuckRComanE (2020) Anticipated emotions in initial trust evaluations of a drone system based on performance and process information. International Journal of Human–computer Interaction36(4): 316–325.
JinWFanJGromalaDPasquierPHamarnehG (2023) Invisible users: Uncovering end-users’ requirements for explainable AI via explanation forms and goals. arXiv [preprint]. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2302.06609.
LaatoSTiainenMNajmul IslamAKMMäntymäkiM (2022) How to explain AI systems to end users: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Internet Research32(7): 1–31.
41.
LarasatiRLiddoADMottaE (2020) The effect of explanation styles on user’s trust. In: ExSS-ATEC’20: Proceedings of IUI workshop on explainable smart systems and algorithmic transparency in emerging technologies, Cagliari, 17 March.
42.
LeeH (2024) “Shut up and take my money”—Narrating state funding, independent journalism, and public trust in Singapore. Communication Research and Practice10: 213–229.
43.
LeeJDSeeKA (2004) Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors46(1): 50–80.
44.
LeichtmannBHumerCHinterreiterAStreitMMaraM (2023) Effects of explainable artificial intelligence on trust and human behavior in a high-risk decision task. Computers in Human Behavior139: 107539.
45.
LiYGuoYLiuS (2021) How do traditional media function in social learning about AI? Psychological and cognitive reactions to AI-powered communication. Communication Studies72(6): 1034–1052.
LujánJLTodtO (2007) Precaution in public: The social perception of the role of science and values in policy making. Public Understanding of Science16(1): 97–109.
49.
MayerRCDavisJHSchoormanFD (1995) An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review20(3): 709.
50.
MillerT (2019) Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences. Artificial Intelligence267: 1–38.
MyrickJGAhernLShaoRConlinJ (2019) Technology name and celebrity endorsement effects of autonomous vehicle promotional messages: Mechanisms and moderators. Science Communication41(1): 38–65.
56.
NaisehMAl-ThaniDJiangNAliR (2023) How the different explanation classes impact trust calibration: The case of clinical decision support systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies169: 102941.
57.
OmeizaDWebbHJirotkaMKunzeL (2022) Explanations in autonomous driving: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems23(8): 10142–10162.
58.
PaniguttiCHamonRHupontIFernandez LlorcaDFano YelaDJunklewitzH, et al. (2023) The role of explainable AI in the context of the AI Act. In: 2023 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, Chicago, IL, 12–15 June, pp. 1139–1150. New York, NY: ACM.
59.
RazaSZamanUFerreiraPFaríasP (2021) An experimental evidence on public acceptance of genetically modified food through advertisement framing on health and environmental benefits, objective knowledge, and risk reduction. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health18(10): 5264.
60.
RiveiroMThillS (2021) “That’s (not) the output I expected!” On the role of end user expectations in creating explanations of AI systems. Artificial Intelligence298: 103507.
61.
RoseKMBrossardDScheufeleDA (2020) Of society, nature, and health: How perceptions of specific risks and benefits of genetically engineered foods shape public rejection. Environmental Communication14(7): 1017–1031.
62.
SchraagenJMElsasserPFrickeHHofMRagalmutoF (2020) Trusting the X in XAI: Effects of different types of explanations by a self-driving car on trust, explanation satisfaction and mental models. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting64(1): 339–343.
63.
SchwarzAFajT (2023) Communicating and perceiving risks of artificial intelligence as an emerging technology. In: SellnowTLSellnowDD (eds) Communicating Risk and Safety. Berlin; Boston, MA: De Gruyter, pp. 503–526.
64.
SeverTContissaG (2024) Automated driving regulations—Where are we now?Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives24: 101033.
65.
ShinD (2020) User perceptions of algorithmic decisions in the personalized AI system: Perceptual evaluation of fairness, accountability, transparency, and explainability. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media64(4): 541–565.
66.
ShinD (2021a) The effects of explainability and causability on perception, trust, and acceptance: Implications for explainable AI. International Journal of Human-computer Studies146: 102551.
67.
ShinD (2021b) Why does explainability matter in news analytic systems? Proposing explainable analytic journalism. Journalism Studies22(8): 8.
68.
ShinD (2022a) Explainable algorithms. In: ShinDD (ed.) Algorithms, Humans, and Interactions: How Do Algorithms Interact with People? Designing Meaningful AI Experiences, 1st edn. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 127–149.
69.
ShinD (2022b) How do people judge the credibility of algorithmic sources?AI & Society37(1): 81–96.
70.
ShinD (2022c) The perception of humanness in conversational journalism: An algorithmic information-processing perspective. New Media & Society24(12): 2680–2704.
71.
ShinDZaidBBioccaFRasulA (2022) In platforms we trust? Unlocking the black-box of news algorithms through interpretable AI. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media66(2): 235–256.
72.
Shulner-TalAKuflikTKligerD (2022a) Fairness, explainability and in-between: Understanding the impact of different explanation methods on non-expert users’ perceptions of fairness toward an algorithmic system. Ethics and Information Technology24(1): 2.
73.
SlaterMDRasinskiKA (2005) Media exposure and attention as mediating variables influencing social risk judgments. Journal of Communication55(4): 810–827.
74.
SlaterMDGoodallCEHayesAF (2009) Self-reported news attention does assess differential processing of media content: An experiment on risk perceptions utilizing a random sample of U.S. local crime and accident news. Journal of Communication59(1): 117–134.
The Office of Science and Technology Policy (2022) Blueprint for an AI Bill of rights: Making automated systems work for the American people. Federal government of the United States. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/ai-bill-of-rights/
77.
WangXYinM (2021) Are explanations helpful? A comparative study of the effects of explanations in AI-assisted decision-making. In: 26th international conference on intelligent user interfaces, College Station, TX, 14–17 April, pp. 318–328. New York, NY: ACM.
78.
WeitzKSchillerDSchlagowskiRHuberTAndréE (2021) “Let me explain!” Exploring the potential of virtual agents in explainable AI interaction design. Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces15(2): 87–98.
79.
WoodcockCMittelstadtBBusbridgeDBlankG (2021) The impact of explanations on layperson trust in artificial intelligence–Driven symptom checker apps: Experimental study. Journal of Medical Internet Research23(11): e29386.
80.
XieXDuYBaiQ (2022) Why do people resist algorithms? From the perspective of short video usage motivations. Frontiers in Psychology13: 941640.
ZahryNBesleyJ (2019) Genetic engineering, genetic modification, or agricultural biotechnology: Does the term matter?Journal of Risk Research22(1): 16–31.
84.
ZhangYLiaoQVBellamyRKE (2020) Effect of confidence and explanation on accuracy and trust calibration in AI-assisted decision making. In: Proceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, Barcelona, 27–30 January, pp. 295–305. New York, NY: ACM.
85.
ZhangZGencYWangDAhsenMEFanX (2021) Effect of AI explanations on human perceptions of patient-facing AI-powered healthcare systems. Journal of Medical Systems45(6): 1–10.
86.
ZhaoXLeiserowitzAAMaibachEWRoser-RenoufC (2011) Attention to science/environment news positively predicts and attention to political news negatively predicts global warming risk perceptions and policy support. Journal of Communication61(4): 713–731.
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.
