This study examined how social media influence the knowledge gap between low and high socioeconomic status (SES) groups in artificial intelligence (AI), a highly debated scientific subject warranting immediate scholarly attention. A national survey of U.S. adults (N = 965) was conducted. The results showed that education and social media exposure to AI information (SME) predicted greater AI knowledge, and SME did not moderate the SES-based AI knowledge gap. Furthermore, information elaboration moderated the association between SME and the AI knowledge gap. SME was associated with a smaller AI knowledge gap when information elaboration was high rather than low.
AboalshamatK.AlharbiJ.AlharthiS.AlnifaeeA.AlhusayniA.AlhazmiR. (2023). The effects of social media (Snapchat) interventions on the knowledge of oral health during pregnancy among pregnant women in Saudi Arabia. PLOS ONE, 18(2), Article e0281908.
2.
AcilarA.SæbøØ. (2023). Towards understanding the gender digital divide: A systematic literature review. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication, 72(3), 233–249.
3.
AhnJ.KimJ.SungY. (2022). The effect of gender stereotypes on artificial intelligence recommendations. Journal of Business Research, 141:, 50–59.
BeamA. L.DrazenJ. M.KohaneI. S.LeongT. Y.ArjunK. M.EricJ. R. (2023). Artificial intelligence in medicine. New England Journal of Medicine, 388(13), 1220–1221.
6.
BeaudoinC. E.ThorsonE. (2004). Testing the cognitive mediation model: The roles of news reliance and three gratifications sought. Communication Research, 31(4), 446–471.
7.
BikH. M.GoldsteinM. C. (2013). An introduction to social media for scientists. PLoS biology, 11(4), e1001535.
8.
BoukesM. (2019). Social network sites and acquiring current affairs knowledge: The impact of Twitter and Facebook usage on learning about the news. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 16(1), 36–51.
9.
BrossardD. (2013). New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States America, 110(3), 14096–14101.
10.
BrossardD.ShanahanJ. (2006). Do they know what they read? Building a scientific literacy measurement instrument based on science media coverage. Science Communication, 28(1), 47–63.
11.
CacciatoreM. A.YeoS. K.ScheufeleD. A.XenosM. A.BrossardD.CorleyE. A. (2018). Is Facebook making us dumber? Exploring social media use as a predictor of political knowledge. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95(2), 404–424.
12.
CeliL. A.CelliniJ.CharpignonM.-L.DeeE. C.DernoncourtF.EberR.MoukheiberW. G. M. L.SchirmerJ.SituJ.PaguioJ.ParkJ.WawiraJ. G.YaoS. (2022). Sources of bias in artificial intelligence that perpetuate healthcare disparities: A global review. PLOS ONE, 1(3), Article e0000022.
13.
ChangJ.-H.KimS.-H.KangM.-H.ShimJ. C.MaD. H. (2018). The gap in scientific knowledge and role of science communication in South Korea. Public Understanding of Science, 27(5), 578–593.
14.
ChewF.PalmerS. (1994). Interest, the knowledge gap, and television programming. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 38(3), 271–287.
15.
CollinsK.ShiffmanD.RockJ. (2016). How are scientists using social media in the workplace?PLOS ONE, 11(10), Article e0162680.
16.
DalalD. K.ZickarM. J. (2012). Some common myths about centering predictor variables in moderated multiple regression and polynomial regression. Organizational Research Methods, 15(3), 339–362.
17.
DasS.DeyA.PalA.RoyN. (2015). Applications of artificial intelligence in machine learning: Review and prospect. International Journal of Computer Applications, 115(9), 31–41.
18.
DepountiI.SaukkoP.NataleS. (2023). Ideal technologies, ideal women: AI and gender imaginaries in Redditors’ discussions on the Replika bot girlfriend. Media, Culture & Society, 45(4), 720–736.
19.
DonohueG. A.TichenorP. J.OlienC. N. (1975). Mass media and the knowledge gap: A hypothesis reconsidered. Communication Research, 2(1), 3–23.
20.
DouglasB. D.EwellP. J.BrauerM. (2023). Data quality in online human-subjects research: Comparisons between MTurk, Prolific, CloudResearch, Qualtrics, and SONA. PLOS ONE, 18(3), Article e0279720.
21.
DurantJ. R.EvansG. A.ThomasG. P. (1989). The public understanding of science. Nature, 340(6228), 11–14.
22.
EcksteinJ. J. (2022). Understanding darkness: Age, sex, and tech-proficiency in knowledge and perceptions of technology-mediated abuse. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 27(5), Article zmac013.
23.
Elena-BuceaA.Cruz-JesusF.OliveiraT.CoelhoP. S. (2021). Assessing the role of age, education, gender and income on the digital divide: Evidence for the European Union. Information Systems Frontiers, 23, 1007–1021.
24.
El NaqaI.MurphyM. J. (2015). What is machine learning? In El NaqaI.LiR.MurphyM. (Eds.), Machine learning in radiation oncology (pp. 3–11). Springer.
25.
EnochY.SokerZ. (2006). Age, gender, ethnicity and the digital divide: University students’ use of web-based instruction. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 21(2), 99–110.
26.
EttemaJ. S.KlineF. G. (1977). Deficits, differences, and ceilings: Contingent conditions for understanding the knowledge gap. Communication Research, 4(2), 179–202.
27.
EvelandW. P.ScheufeleD. A. (2000). Connecting news media use with gaps in knowledge and participation. Political Communication, 17(3), 215–237.
28.
EvelandW. P.Jr. (2004). The effect of political discussion in producing informed citizens: The roles of information, motivation, and elaboration. Political Communication, 21(2), 177–193.
29.
FarkasG.BeronK. (2004). The detailed age trajectory of oral vocabulary knowledge: Differences by class and race. Social Science Research, 33(3), 464–497.
30.
GazianoC. (1983). The knowledge gap: An analytical review of media effects. Communication Research, 10(4), 447–486.
31.
GerosaT.GuiM.HargittaiE.NguyenM. H. (2021). (Mis)informed during COVID-19: How education level and information sources contribute to knowledge gaps. International Journal of Communication, 15, 2196–2217.
32.
GuanT.ChenX. (2023). The emerging scientific public sphere in China’s digital economy: Weibo discussions on facial recognition technology. Public Understanding of Science, 32(2), 208–223.
33.
HaenleinM.KaplanA. (2019). A brief history of artificial intelligence: On the past, present, and future of artificial intelligence. California Management Review, 61(4), 5–14.
34.
HargittaiE. (2002). Beyond logs and surveys: In-depth measures of people’s web use skills. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology, 53(14), 1239–1244.
35.
HartmannJ.SchwenzowJ.WitteM. (2023). The political ideology of conversational AI: Converging evidence on ChatGPT’s pro-environmental, left-libertarian orientation (Arxiv preprint Arxiv 230101). https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.01768
36.
HashimotoD. A.RosmanG.RusD.MeirelesO. R. (2018). Artificial intelligence in surgery: Promises and perils. Annals of Surgery, 268(1), 70–76.
37.
HayesA. F.CouttsJ. J. (2020). Use Omega rather than Cronbach’s alpha for estimating reliability: But…. Communication Methods and Measures, 14(1), 1–24.
38.
HayesA. F.MatthesJ. (2009). Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behavior Research Methods, 41(3), 924–936.
39.
HoS. S.PehX.SohV. W. L. (2013). The cognitive mediation model: Factors influencing public knowledge of the H1N1 pandemic and intention to take precautionary behaviors. Journal of Health Communication, 18(7), 773–794.
40.
HoS. S.YangX. (2018). Communication, cognitive processing, and public knowledge about climate change. Asian Journal of Communication, 28(5), 449–467.
41.
HoS. S.YangX.ThanwaraniA.ChanJ. M. (2016). Examining public acquisition of science knowledge from social media in Singapore: An extension of the cognitive mediation model. Asian Journal of Communication, 27(2), 193–212.
42.
HolzingerA.KeiblingerK.HolubP.ZatloukalK.MüllerH. (2023). AI for life: Trends in artificial intelligence for biotechnology. New Biotechnology, 74, 16–24.
43.
HuberB.BarnidgeM.Gil De ZúñigaH.LiuJ. (2019). Fostering public trust in science: The role of social media. Public Understanding of Science, 28(7), 759–777.
44.
HwangY.JeongS.-H. (2009). Revisiting the knowledge gap hypothesis: A meta-analysis of thirty-five years of research. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86(3), 513–532.
45.
JiangS. (2022). Does social media promote or hinder health learning? The roles of media attention, information discussion, information elaboration, and information seeking experience. Mass Communication and Society. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2022.2090961
46.
JohannesN.NguyenT. V.WeinsteinN.PrzybylskiA. K. (2021). Objective, subjective, and accurate reporting of social media use: No evidence that daily social media use correlates with personality traits, motivational states, or well-being. Technology, Mind, and Behavior, 2(2), 1–14.
47.
KwakN. (1999). Revisiting the knowledge gap hypothesis: Education, motivation, and media use. Communication Research, 26(4), 385–413.
48.
LeavyS. (2018, Mary28). Gender bias in artificial intelligence: The need for diversity and gender theory in machine learning. In Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on gender equality in software engineering (pp. 14–16). ACM.
49.
LeeS.TandocE. C.Jr.LeeE. W. (2023). Social media may hinder learning about science; Social media’s role in learning about COVID-19. Computers in Human Behavior, 138, Article 107487.
50.
LeeS.XenosM. (2019). Social distraction? Social media use and political knowledge in two U.S. Presidential elections. Computers in Human Behavior, 90, 18–25.
51.
LiW.ChoH. (2023). The knowledge gap on social media: Examining roles of engagement and networks. New Media & Society, 25(5), 1023–1042.
52.
LiangX.SuL. Y.-F.YeoS. K.ScheufeleD. A.BrossardD.XenosM.NealeyP.CorleyE. (2014). Building buzz: (Scientists) Communicating science in new media environments. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 91(4), 772–791.
53.
LindF.BoomgaardenH. G. (2019). What we do and don’t know: A meta-analysis of the knowledge gap hypothesis. Annals of the International Communication Association, 43(3), 210–224.
LutzC. (2019). Digital inequalities in the age of artificial intelligence and big data. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 1(2), 141–148.
56.
MaY.WangZ.YangH.YangL. (2020). Artificial intelligence applications in the development of autonomous vehicles: A survey. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 7(2), 315–329.
57.
MarquiéJ. C.Jourdan-BoddaertL.HuetN. (2002). Do older adults underestimate their actual computer knowledge?Behaviour & Information Technology, 21(4), 273–280.
58.
MartinC.MacDonaldH. (2020). Using interpersonal communication strategies to encourage science conversations on social media. PLOS ONE, 15(11), Article e0241972.
59.
MooreD. W. (1987). Political campaigns and the knowledge gap hypothesis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 186–200.
NawazF. A.BarrA. A.DesaiM. Y.TsagkarisC.SinghR.KlagerE.EibensteinerF.ParvanovE. D.HribersekM.Kletecka-PulkerM.WillschkeH.AtanasovA. G. (2022). Promoting research, awareness, and discussion on AI in medicine using# MedTwitterAI: a longitudinal twitter hashtag analysis. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, 856571.
63.
PalanS.SchitterC. (2018). Prolific.ac: A subject pool for online experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 17, 22–27.
64.
PeerE.RothschildD.GordonA.EverndenZDamerE. (2021). Data quality of platforms and panels for online behavioral research. Behavior Research Methods, 54(4), 1643–1662.
65.
PengY. (2023). The role of ideological dimensions in shaping acceptance of facial recognition technology and reactions to algorithm bias. Public Understanding of Science, 32(2), 190–207.
PriceV.ZallerJ. (1993). Who gets the news? Alternative measures of news perceptions and their implications for research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 133–164.
69.
QiW.PanJ.LyuH.LuoJ. (2023). Excitements and concerns in the post-chatgpt era: Deciphering public perception of ai through social media analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.05809.
70.
RiserD. K.ClarkeS. D.StallworthA. N. (2020). Scientific memes: Using the language of social media to improve scientific literacy and communication in lifespan development. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 19(3), 275–289.
71.
RöösliE.RiceB.Hernandez-BoussardT. (2021). Bias at warp speed: How AI may contribute to the disparities gap in the time of COVID-19. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 28(1), 190–192.
72.
SaidN.PotinteuA. E.BrichI.BuderJ.SchummH.HuffM. (2023). An artificial intelligence perspective: How knowledge and confidence shape risk and benefit perception. Computers in Human Behavior, 149, 107855
73.
SchaetzN.GagrčinE.TothR.EmmerM. (2023). Algorithm dependency in platformized news use. New Media & Society. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231193093
74.
SchwabK. (2017). The fourth industrial revolution (1st U.S. ed.). Crown Business.
75.
ShehataA.StrömbäckJ. (2021). Learning political news from social media: Network media logic and current affairs news learning in a high-choice media environment. Communication Research, 48(1), 125–147.
76.
SheldonK. M. (2007). Gender differences in preferences for singles ads that proclaim extrinsic versus intrinsic values. Sex Roles, 57(1–2), 119–129.
77.
Stokel-WalkerC.Van NoordenR. (2023). What ChatGPT and generative AI mean for science. Nature, 614(7947), 214–216.
78.
SuL. Y.-F.CacciatoreM. A.ScheufeleD. A.BrossardD.XenosM. A. (2014). Inequalities in scientific understanding: Differentiating between factual and perceived knowledge gaps. Science Communication, 36(3), 352–378.
79.
SurianD.NguyenD. Q.KennedyG.JohnsonM.CoieraE.DunnA. G. (2016). Characterizing Twitter discussions about HPV vaccines using topic modeling and community detection. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18(8), Article 232.
80.
ThorsonK. (2020). Attracting the news: Algorithms, platforms, and reframing incidental exposure. Journalism, 21(8), 1067–1082.
81.
TichenorP. J.DonohueG. A.OlienC. N. (1970). Mass media flow and differential growth in knowledge. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34(2), 159–170.
82.
TrankinaM. L. (1993). Gender differences in attitudes toward science. Psychological Reports, 73(2), 123–130.
VerbeijT.PouwelsJ. L.BeyensI.ValkenburgP. M. (2022). Experience sampling self-reports of social media use have comparable predictive validity to digital trace measures. Scientific Reports, 12, Article 7611.
85.
ViswanathK.FinneganR.HertogJ.PirieP.MurrayD. (1994). Community type and the diffusion of campaign information. Gazette, 54, 39–59.
86.
ViswanathK.FinneganJ. R.Jr. (1996). The knowledge gap hypothesis: Twenty-five years later. Annals of the International Communication Association, 19(1), 187–228.
87.
Van DeursenA. J.HelsperE. J. (2015). The third-level digital divide: Who benefits most from being online?. In Communication and information technologies annual (pp. 29-52). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
88.
von RotenF. C. (2004). Gender differences in attitudes toward science in Switzerland. Public Understanding of Science, 13(2), 191–199.
89.
WeiL.HindmanD. B. (2011). Does the digital divide matter more? Comparing the effects of new media and old media use on the education-based knowledge gap. Mass Communication and Society, 14(2), 216–235.
90.
XuS.KeeK.LiW.YamamotoM.RiggsR. (2023). Examining the diffusion of innovations from a dynamic, differential-effects perspective: A longitudinal study on AI adoption among employees. Communication Research. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502231191832
91.
XuS.LiW. (2022). A tool or a social being? A dynamic longitudinal investigation of functional use and relational use of AI voice assistants. New Media & Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221108112
92.
YampolskiyR. V. (2013). Turing test as a defining feature of AI-completeness. In YangX. S. (Ed.), Artificial intelligence, evolutionary computing and metaheuristics: Studies in computational intelligence (pp. 3–17) Springer.
93.
YaşarÖ.KaradenizŞ. (2011). The power of social media in informal learning. In Mendez-VillasA. (Ed.), Education in a technological world: Communicating current and emerging research and technological efforts (pp. 531–538). Formatex.
94.
YeoS. K.SuL. Y.-F.CacciatoreM. A.McKasyM.QianS. (2020). Predicting intentions to engage with scientific messages on Twitter: The roles of mirth and need for humor. Science Communication, 42(4), 481–507.
95.
YinH.YouQ.WuJ.JinL. (2022). Factors influencing the knowledge gap regarding influenza and influenza vaccination in the context of COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional survey in China. Vaccines, 10(6), Article 957.
ZhengX.LuY. (2023). Don’t you know it’s risky and influential? Antecedents and consequences of perceived fake news risks and influences. The Socisal Science Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/03623319.2023.2229130
