Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to advance health care, industrial productivity, and environmental sustainability but also presents risks such as job loss and uncontrolled superintelligent machines. Understanding public opinion about AI is key for anticipating its governance. This study examines how media framing affects U.S. beliefs about AI and support for its development. A survey experiment involved respondents reading articles highlighting either AI’s benefits or risks, revealing how such information can influence opinion on AI’s societal impacts. The findings emphasize the crucial role of framing in shaping public views on AI, with implications for policymakers and stakeholders.
BeetsB.NewmanT. P.HowellE. L.BaoL.YangS. (2023). Surveying public perceptions of artificial intelligence in health care in the United States: Systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 25, e40337.
3.
BingamanJ.BrewerP. R.PaintsilA.WilsonD. C. (2021). “Siri, show me scary images of AI”: Effects of text-based frames and visuals on support for artificial intelligence. Science Communication, 43(3), 388–401.
4.
BrechmanJ. M.LeeC. J.CappellaJ. N. (2011). Distorting genetic research about cancer: From bench science to press release to published news. Journal of Communication, 61(3), 496–513.
5.
BrewerP. R.BingamanJ.PaintsilA.WilsonD. C.DawsonW. (2022). Media use, interpersonal communication, and attitudes toward artificial intelligence. Science Communication, 44(5), 559–592.
6.
BrossardD.LewensteinB. V. (2009). A critical appraisal of models of public understanding of science: Using practice to inform theory. In KahlorL.StoutP. (Eds.), Communicating science (pp. 25–53). Routledge.
7.
BrossardD.NisbetM. C. (2007). Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding US opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19(1), 24–52. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edl003
8.
ChoiS. (2023). Temporal framing in balanced news coverage of artificial intelligence and public attitudes. Mass Communication and Society, 27(2), 384–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2023.2248974
9.
ChongD.DruckmanJ. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103–126.
10.
ChoungH.DavidP.RossA. (2023). Trust in AI and its role in the acceptance of AI technologies. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 39(9), 1727–1739.
11.
ChuanC. H.TsaiW. H. S.ChoS. Y. (2019, January). Framing artificial intelligence in American newspapers [Conference session]. 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, New York, NY, United States, pp. 339–344.
12.
DixsonH. G. W.Komugabe-DixsonA. F.MedveckyF.BalanovicJ.ThygesenH.MacDonaldE. A. (2022). Trust in science and scientists: Effects of social attitudes and motivations on views regarding climate change, vaccines and gene drive technology. Journal of Trust Research, 12(2), 179–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2022.2155658
EntmanR. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.
18.
FaraboschiP.FrachtenbergE.LaplanteP.MilojicicD.SaraccoR. (2023). Artificial general intelligence: Humanity’s downturn or unlimited prosperity. Computer, 56(10), 93–101.
19.
FastE.HorvitzE. (2017, February). Long-term trends in the public perception of artificial intelligence. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 31(1), 963–969.
GamsonW. A.ModiglianiA. (1987). The changing culture of affirmative action. In BraungartR. G.BraungartM. M. (Eds.), Research in political sociology: A research annual (Vol. 3, pp. 137–177). JAI Press.
22.
HorowitzM. C. (2016). Public opinion and the politics of the killer robots debate. Research & Politics, 3(1), 1–8.
23.
KahanD. M.BramanD.SlovicP.GastilJ.CohenG. (2009). Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 87–90. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2008.341
24.
KahanD. M.SlovicP.BramanD.CastilJ. (2005). Fear of democracy: A cultural evaluation of Sunstein of risk. Harvard Law Review, 119(4), 1071–1109.
25.
KimT.SongH. (2023). Communicating the limitations of AI: The effect of message framing and ownership on trust in artificial intelligence. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 39(4), 790–800.
26.
KleizenB.Van DoorenW.VerhoestK.TanE. (2023). Do citizens trust trustworthy artificial intelligence? Experimental evidence on the limits of ethical AI measures in government. Government Information Quarterly, 40(4), 101834.
27.
KoenigP. D. (2024). Attitudes toward artificial intelligence: Combining three theoretical perspectives on technology acceptance. AI & Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-01987-z
28.
KoetkeJ.SchumannK.PorterT. (2021). Trust in science increases conservative support for social distancing. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24(4), 680–697.
29.
KrepsS. (2014). Flying under the radar: A study of public attitudes towards unmanned aerial vehicles. Research & Politics, 1(1), 1–7.
30.
KrepsS.GeorgeJ.LushenkoP.RaoA. (2023). Exploring the artificial intelligence “Trust paradox”: Evidence from a survey experiment in the United States. PLOS ONE, 18(7), e0288109.
31.
KurzweilR. (2024). The singularity is nearer: When we merge with AI. Random House.
32.
LeeC. J.ScheufeleD. 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.
33.
MarinakisY.HarmsR.WalshS. (2016). The precautionary principle: What is it, where did it come from, and how should we use it?Journal of International & Interdisciplinary Business Research, 3, 1–3.
34.
McLeanS.KingB. J.ThompsonJ.CardenT.StantonN. A.BaberC.ReadG. J. M.SalmonP. M. (2023). Forecasting emergent risks in advanced AI systems: An analysis of a future road transport management system. Ergonomics, 66(11), 1750–1767.
35.
MernykJ. S.SophiaL.PinkS. L.DruckmanJ. N.WillerR. (2022). Correcting inaccurate metaperceptions reduces Americans’ support for partisan violence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 119(16), e2116851119.
36.
NguyenD.HekmanE. (2024). The news framing of artificial intelligence: A critical exploration of how media discourses make sense of automation. AI & Society, 39(2), 437–451.
OuchchyL.CoinA.DubljevićV. (2020). AI in the headlines: The portrayal of the ethical issues of artificial intelligence in the media. AI & Society, 35, 927–936.
39.
RoeJ.PerkinsM. (2023). “What they’re not telling you about ChatGPT”: Exploring the discourse of AI in UK news media headlines. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 1–9.
40.
RosendorfO.SmetanaM.VrankaM. (2023). Algorithmic aversion? Experimental evidence on the elasticity of public attitudes to “Killer Robots.”Security Studies, 33(1), 115–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2023.2250259
41.
RyazanovI.ÖhmanC.BjörklundJ. (2024). How ChatGPT changed the media’s narratives on AI: A semi-automated narrative analysis through frame semantics (arXiv:2408.06120). arXiv preprint.
ScheufeleD. A.LewensteinB. V. (2005). The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7(6), 659–667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-005-7526-2
45.
SelwynN.Gallo CordobaB. (2022). Australian public understandings of artificial intelligence. AI & Society, 37(4), 1645–1662.
46.
SieberR.BrandusescuA.Adu-DaakoA.SangiambutS. (2024). Who are the publics engaging in AI?Public Understanding of Science, 33(5), 634–653.
47.
SjobergL. (2002). Limits of knowledge and the limited importance of trust. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 21(1), 189–198.
48.
SotalaK.YampolskiyR. V. (2014). Responses to catastrophic AGI risk: A survey. Physical Scripta, 90(1), 018001.
49.
SuleymanM. (2023). The coming wave: Technology, power, and the twenty-first century’s greatest dilemma. Crown.
YoungK. L.CarpenterC. (2018). Does science fiction affect political fact? Yes and no: A survey experiment on “Killer Robots.”International Studies Quarterly, 62(3), 562–576.
56.
ZallerJ. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge University.
57.
ZhangB.DafoeA. (2020, February7–8). US public opinion on the governance of artificial intelligence [Conference session]. AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, New York, NY, United States, pp. 187–193.
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.
