Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This research note examines how framing influences attitudes toward artificial intelligence (AI). It uses an experiment embedded in a nationally representative online survey to test the effects of text-based frames and visuals on opinion about developing, funding, and banning AI. Participants exposed to a “social progress” frame reported greater support for AI than those exposed to a “Pandora’s box” frame. Images (virtual assistants, personal robots, menacing movie AIs, or none) did not influence opinion by themselves but interacted with textual frames to do so. The results extend our understanding of framing effects on public attitudes toward emerging technologies.

Keywords

artificial intelligence framing images media effects public opinion

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bolsen

Palm

Kingsland

J. T.

(2019). Counteracting climate science politicization with effective frames and imagery. Science Communication, 41(2), 147-171. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019834565

Brewer

P. R.

Gross

(2010). Studying the effects of issue framing on public opinion about policy issues: Does what we see depend on how we look? In D’Angelo

Kypers

J. A.

(Eds.), Doing news framing analysis: Empirical and theoretical perspectives (pp. 159-186). Routledge.

Brossard

Scheufele

Kim

Lewenstein

(2009). Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 18(5), 546-558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662507087304

Chong

Druckman

J. N.

(2007a). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101(4), 637-655. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055407070554

Chong

Druckman

J. N.

(2007b). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103-126. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054

Chong

Druckman

J. B.

(2007c). A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 99-118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00331_3.x

Chuan

Tsai

W. S.

Cho

S. Y.

(2019, January 27-28). Framing artificial intelligence in American newspapers. In Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES’19) (pp. 339-344). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3306618

Cobb

M. D.

(2005). Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology. Science Communication, 27(2), 221-239. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547005281473

Detenber

B. H.

S. S.

Ong

A. H.

Lim

N. W.

(2018). Complementary versus competitive framing effects in the context of pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors. Science Communication, 40(2), 173-198. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018758075

10.

Druckman

J. N.

Bolsen

(2011). Framing, motivated reasoning, and opinions about emergent technologies. Journal of Communication, 61(4), 659-688. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01562.x

11.

Entman

R. M.

(1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x

12.

Fast

Horvitz

(2017). Long-term trends in the public perception of artificial intelligence. In Proceedings of the Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-17) (pp. 963-969). Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.

13.

Feldman

Hart

P. S.

(2018). Is there any hope? How climate change news imagery and text influence audience emotions and support for climate mitigation policies. Risk Analysis, 38(3), 585-602. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12868

14.

Fleming

Jr. (2016, March 28). No. 4 “Avengers: Age of Ultron”—2015 most valuable movie blockbuster tournament. Deadline. https://deadline.com/2016/03/avengers-age-of-ultron-profit-2015-box-office-marvel-universe-1201725562/

15.

Gaines

Kuklinski

Quirk

(2007). The logic of the survey experiment reexamined. Political Analysis, 15(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpl008

16.

Gamson

W. A.

Modigliani

(1987). The changing culture of affirmative action. In Braungart

R. G.

Braungart

M. M.

(Eds.), Research in political sociology (Vol. 3, pp. 137-177). JAI Press.

17.

Hart

P. S.

Feldman

(2016). The impact of climate change-related imagery and text on public opinion and behavior change. Science Communication, 38(4), 415-441. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016655357

18.

Iyengar

(1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. University of Chicago Press.

19.

Lakens

(2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 863. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863

20.

Lee

C. J.

Scheufele

D. A.

(2006). The influence of knowledge and deference toward scientific authority: A media effects model for public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(4), 819-834. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900608300406

21.

Monmouth University Polling Institute. (2015). Monmouth University poll (Roper #31113655) [Data set]. Cornell University, Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, iPOLL [distributor]. https://doi.org/10.25940/ROPER-31113655

22.

Mori

(1970). The uncanny valley. Energy, 7(4), 33-35.

23.

Nelson

T. E.

Clawson

R. A.

Oxley

Z. M.

(1997). Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review, 91(3), 567-583. https://doi.org/10.2307/2952075

24.

Neri

Cozman

(2019). The role of experts in the public perception of risk of artificial intelligence. AI & Society, 35, 663-673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-019-00924-9

25.

Nisbet

E. C.

Hart

P. S.

Myers

Ellithorpe

(2013). Attitude change in competitive framing environments? Open-/closed-mindedness, framing effects, and climate change. Journal of Communication, 63(4), 766-785. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12040

26.

Nisbet

M. C.

(2009). Framing science: A new paradigm in public engagement. In Kahlor

Stout

(Eds.), Communicating science: New agendas in communication (pp. 40-67). Routledge.

27.

Nisbet

M. C.

Brossard

Kroepsch

(2003). Framing science: The stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 8(2), 36-70. https://doi.org/10.1177/1081180X02251047

28.

Nisbet

M. C.

Mooney

(2007, April 6). Framing science. Science, 316(5821), 56. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1142030

29.

Nisbet

M. C.

Scheufele

D. A.

(2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96(10), 1767-1778. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.0900041

30.

Northeastern University & Gallup. (2018, January). Optimism and anxiety: Views on the impact of artificial intelligence and higher education’s response. https://www.northeastern.edu/gallup/pdf/OptimismAnxietyNortheasternGallup.pdf

31.

Obozintsev

(2018). From Skynet to Siri: An exploration of the nature and effects of media coverage of artificial intelligence [Master’s thesis, University of Delaware]. University of Delaware Library Institutional Repository. http://udspace.udel.edu/handle/19716/24048

32.

Perez

(2020, February 17). Smart speaker sales reached new record of 146.9M in 2019, up 70% from 2018. Tech Crunch. https://techcrunch.com/2020/02/17/smart-speaker-sales-reached-new-record-of-146-9m-in-2019-up-70-from-2018

33.

Perkowitz

(2007). Hollywood science: Movies, science, and the end of the world. Columbia University Press.

34.

Powell

T. E.

Boomgaarden

H. G.

De Swert

de Vreese

C. H.

(2015). A clearer picture: The contribution of visuals and text to framing effects. Journal of Communication, 65(6), 997-1017. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12184

35.

Priest

S. H.

(1994). Structuring public debate on biotechnology: Media frames and public response. Science Communication, 16(2), 166-179. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164025994016002004

36.

Russell

S. J.

Norvig

(2003). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach. (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall.

37.

Schütz

Wiedemann

P. M.

(2008). Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 17(3), 369-379. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506071282

38.

Tobe

(2016, May 27). How is Pepper, SoftBank’s emotional robot, doing? The Robot Report. https://www.therobotreport.com/how-is-pepper-softbanks-emotional-robot-doing/

39.

Turing

(1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59(236), 433-460. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433

40.

West

D. M.

(2018, May 21). Brookings survey finds worries over AI impact on jobs and personal privacy, concern U.S. will fall behind China. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2018/05/21/brookings-survey-finds-worries-over-ai-impact-on-jobs-and-personal-privacy-concern-u-s-will-fall-behind-china/

41.

Yee

Y. W.

(2019, Nov. 3). Huawei opens AI lab here to train 1,000 developers. The Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/tech/huawei-opens-ai-lab-here-to-train-1000-developers

42.

Zhang

Dafoe

(2019, January). Artificial intelligence: American attitudes and trends. Center for the Governance of AI, Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford. https://governanceai.github.io/US-Public-Opinion-Report-Jan-2019/

“Siri,Show Me Scary Images of AI”: Effects of Text-Based Frames and Visuals on Support for Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References