Implementing artificial intelligence also requires examinations of public attitudes and perceptions. One approach is by examining media framing of artificial intelligence, including news coverage, which is a reflection of societal perceptions and a key influence over people’s understanding. As such, this study examines the framing of communicative artificial intelligence in Singapore, looking at how the news media frame communicative artificial intelligence and characterize it as a social actor. Through a manual content analysis of 336 news articles from three major news websites in Singapore, this study found that the news media in Singapore tend to focus on the benefits and advances of communicative artificial intelligence and portray communicative artificial intelligence as a tool rather than social actor. However, when comparing news coverage of communicative artificial intelligence after the advent of ChatGPT, the news framed communicative artificial intelligence more in terms of risks, regulations, responsibilities, and conflict.
AdayS (2006) The framesetting effects of news: An experimental test of advocacy versus objectivist frames. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly83: 767–784.
2.
AraujoT (2018) Living up to the chatbot hype: The influence of anthropomorphic design cues and communicative agency framing on conversational agent and company perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior85: 183–189.
3.
BoesmanJBerbersAD’HaenensLVan GorpB (2017) The news is in the frame: A journalist-centered approach to the frame-building process of the Belgian Syria fighters. Journalism18: 298–316.
4.
BradshawJM (1997) An introduction to software agents. In: BradshawJM (ed.) Software Agents. Washington, DC: AAAI Press, pp. 1–45.
5.
BreazuPKatsosN (2024) Chatgpt-4 as a journalist: Whose perspectives is it reproducing?Discourse & Society35: 687–707.
6.
BrokenshaS (2020) Friend or Foe? How online news outlets in South Africa frame artificial intelligence. Ensovoort41: 2.
7.
BrondiSPivettiMDi BattistaSSarricaM (2021) What do we expect from robots? Social representations, attitudes and evaluations of robots in daily life. Technology in Society66: 101663.
8.
BunzMBraghieriM (2022) The AI doctor will see you now: Assessing the framing of AI in news coverage. AI & Society37: 9–22.
9.
CarlsonM (2015) The robotic reporter. Digital Journalism3: 416–431.
10.
ChavesAPGerosaMA (2021) How should my Chatbot interact? A survey on social characteristics in human–Chatbot interaction design. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction37: 729–758.
11.
ChoiS (2024) Temporal framing in balanced news coverage of artificial intelligence and public attitudes. Mass Communication and Society27: 384–405.
12.
ChongDDruckmanJN (2007) Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science10: 103–126.
ChuanC-HTsaiW-HSChoSY (2019) Framing artificial intelligence in American newspapers. In: Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM conference on AI, ethics, and society, Honolulu, HI, 27–28 January, pp. 339–344. New York, NY: ACM.
15.
CoolsHVan GorpBOpgenhaffenM (2024) Where exactly between utopia and dystopia? A framing analysis of AI and automation in US newspapers. Journalism25: 3–21.
16.
CurranNMSunJHongJ-W (2020) Anthropomorphizing AlphaGo: A content analysis of the framing of Google DeepMind’s AlphaGo in the Chinese and American press. AI & Society35: 727–735.
17.
D’AngeloP (2017) Framing: Media frames. The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects. Epub ahead of print 8 March. DOI: 10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0048.
18.
De VreeseCH (2005) News framing: Theory and typology. Information Design Journal & Document Design13: 51–62.
19.
DruckmanJN (2001) The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior23: 225–256.
20.
DruckmanJN (2004) Political preference formation: Competition, deliberation, and the (ir)relevance of framing effects. American Political Science Review98: 671–686.
21.
EntmanRM (1993) Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication43: 51–58.
22.
EpleyNWaytzATCacioppoJT (2007) On seeing human: A three factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review114: 864–886.
23.
FeineJGnewuchUMoranaSMaedcheA (2019) A taxonomy of social cues for conversational agents. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies132: 138–161.
24.
FoggBNassC (1997) How users reciprocate to computers: An experiment that demonstrates behavior change. In: CHI ‘97 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, Yokohama, Japan, 26 April–1 May, pp. 331–332. Atlanta, GA: ACM.
GongL (2008) How social is social responses to computers? The function of the degree of anthropomorphism in computer representations. Computers in Human Behavior24: 1494–1509.
27.
GuzmanALLewisSC (2019) Artificial intelligence and communication: A Human–Machine Communication research agenda. New Media & Society22: 70–86.
28.
HamJLiSLooiJEastinMS (2024) Virtual humans as social actors: Investigating user perceptions of virtual humans’ emotional expression on social media. Computers in Human Behavior155: 108161.
29.
HöijerB (2011) Social representations theory: A new theory for media research. Nordicom Review32: 3–16.
JonesJHimelboimI (2010) Just a guy in pajamas? Framing the blogs in mainstream US newspaper coverage (1999—2005). New Media & Society12: 271–288.
33.
KimS-HAnne WillisL (2007) Talking about obesity: News framing of who is responsible for causing and fixing the problem. Journal of Health Communication12: 359–376.
LeeE-J (2010) What triggers social responses to flattering computers? Experimental tests of anthropomorphism and mindlessness explanations. Communication Research37: 191–214.
36.
LeeL-ERNassCI (2010) Trust in computers: The Computers-Are-Social-Actors (CASA) paradigm and trustworthiness perception in human-computer communication. In: LatusekDGerbasiA (eds) Trust and Technology in a Ubiquitous Modern Environment: Theoretical and Methodological Perspectives. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 1–15.
37.
LeeSChoiJ (2017) Enhancing user experience with conversational agent for movie recommendation: Effects of self-disclosure and reciprocity. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies103: 95–105.
38.
Lee-WonRJJooYKParkSG (2020) Media equation. The International Encyclopedia of Media Psychology. Epub ahead of print 8 September. DOI: 10.1002/9781119011071.iemp0158.
39.
LimJ (2022) OCBC’s scam detection helped customers save S$10M this year [Online]. The Straits Times, 22November. Available at: https://str.sg/3NfG (accessed 27 March 2024).
40.
LowD (2021) Virtual Museum Gallery’s new AI-powered tour guide can answer visitors’ questions [Online]. The Straits Times, 22November. Available at: https://str.sg/3NQE (accessed 27 March 2024).
41.
NassCMoonYGreenN (1997) Are machines gender neutral? Gender-stereotypic responses to computers with voices. Journal of Applied Social Psychology27: 864–876.
42.
NelsonTEOxleyZMClawsonRA (1997) Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior19: 221–246.
43.
NguyenD (2023) How news media frame data risks in their coverage of Big Data and AI. Internet Policy Review12: 1708.
44.
NguyenDHekmanE (2022) A ‘new arms race’? Framing China and the U.S.A. in A.I. news reporting: A comparative analysis of the Washington Post and South China Morning Post. Global Media and China7: 58–77.
45.
NguyenDHekmanE (2024) The news framing of artificial intelligence: A critical exploration of how media discourses make sense of automation. AI & Society39: 437–451.
46.
OuchchyLCoinADubljevićV (2020) AI in the headlines: The portrayal of the ethical issues of artificial intelligence in the media. AI & Society35: 927–936.
47.
PriceVTewksburyDPowersE (1997) Switching trains of thought: The impact of news frames on readers’ cognitive responses. Communication Research24: 481–506.
48.
PuringtonATaftJGSannonSBazarovaNNTaylorSH (2017) “Alexa is my new BFF”: Social roles, user satisfaction, and personification of the Amazon Echo. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, Denver, CO, 6–11 May, pp. 2853–2859. New York, NY: ACM.
49.
RhimJKwakMGongYGweonG (2022) Application of humanization to survey chatbots: Change in chatbot perception, interaction experience, and survey data quality. Computers in Human Behavior126: 107034.
50.
RussellSNorvigP (2010) Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. London: Pearson.
51.
SchaumburgH (2001) Computers as tools or as social actors? — The users’ perspective on anthropomorphic agents. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems10: 217–234.
52.
ShinD-H (2013) Defining sociability and social presence in Social TV. Computers in Human Behavior29: 939–947.
53.
ShoemakerPJReeseSD (2014) Mediating the Message in the 21st Century: A Media Sociology Perspective. New York, NY: Routledge.
54.
SpatolaNWudarczykOA (2021) Ascribing emotions to robots: Explicit and implicit attribution of emotions and perceived robot anthropomorphism. Computers in Human Behavior124: 106934.
55.
StoutenboroughJWSturgessSGVedlitzA (2013) Knowledge, risk, and policy support: Public perceptions of nuclear power. Energy Policy62: 176–184.
56.
SunSZhaiYShenBChenY (2020) Newspaper coverage of artificial intelligence: A perspective of emerging technologies. Telematics and Informatics53: 101433.
TegosM (2017) Singapore will spend $107M to be a force for AI in the next 5 years. It’s just in time [Online]. Tech in Asia, 4May. Available at: https://www.techinasia.com/singapore-aisg-startups (accessed 27 March 2024).
59.
TewksburyDScheufeleDA (2009) News framing theory and research. In: BryantJBethOM (eds) Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research (3rd ed.) (pp. 17–33). New York, NY: Routledge.
60.
TschoppMSassenbergK (2024) The impact of human-AI relationship perception on voice shopping intentions. Human-Machine Communication8: 101–117.
61.
TschoppMGieselmannMSassenbergK (2023) Servant by default? How humans perceive their relationship with conversational AI. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace17: 9.
62.
VergeerM (2020) Artificial Intelligence in the Dutch Press: An analysis of topics and trends. Communication Studies71: 373–392.
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.
