See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/373718135

Perceptions and Acceptance of Artificial Intelligence: A Multi-Dimensional

Study

Article in Social Sciences · September 2023

DOI: 10.3390/socsci12090502

CITATIONS READS

27 1,596

1 author:

Michael Gerlich
SBS Swiss Business School
22 PUBLICATIONS 131 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Michael Gerlich on 07 September 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 $
£ ¥€
social sciences
Article
Perceptions and Acceptance of Artificial Intelligence:
A Multi-Dimensional Study
Michael Gerlich

Department of Management, SBS Swiss Business School, 8302 Kloten, Zurich, Switzerland;
[email protected]

Abstract: In this comprehensive study, insights from 1389 scholars across the US, UK, Germany, and
Switzerland shed light on the multifaceted perceptions of artificial intelligence (AI). AI’s burgeoning
integration into everyday life promises enhanced efficiency and innovation. The Trustworthy AI
principles by the European Commission, emphasising data safeguarding, security, and judicious
governance, serve as the linchpin for AI’s widespread acceptance. A correlation emerged between
societal interpretations of AI’s impact and elements like trustworthiness, associated risks, and
usage/acceptance. Those discerning AI’s threats often view its prospective outcomes pessimistically,
while proponents recognise its transformative potential. These inclinations resonate with trust and
AI’s perceived singularity. Consequently, factors such as trust, application breadth, and perceived
vulnerabilities shape public consensus, depicting AI as humanity’s boon or bane. The study also
accentuates the public’s divergent views on AI’s evolution, underlining the malleability of opinions
amidst polarising narratives.

Keywords: artificial intelligence; AI; public sentiment; AI acceptance; trustworthiness; perceived

risks; societal attitude

1. Introduction
All of the areas of our life have the potential to become revolutionised by artificial
intelligence (AI). The general public’s opinion on and acceptance of AI, however, is still
largely unknown. Modern artificial intelligence has its origins in Alan Turing’s test of
Citation: Gerlich, Michael. 2023. machine intelligence in 1950, and the phrase was first used by a professor at Dartmouth
Perceptions and Acceptance of College in 1956. Today, the phrase refers to a wide variety of technology, ideas, and
Artificial Intelligence: A applications. In this research work, the word “AI” is used to describe a collection of
Multi-Dimensional Study. Social computer science methods that allow systems to carry out operations that would typically
Sciences 12: 502. https://doi.org/ require human intellect, such as speech recognition, visual perception, decision making,
10.3390/socsci12090502
and language translation. All social systems, including economics, politics, science, and
Received: 12 August 2023 education, have been impacted recently by the rapid advancements in artificial intelligence
Revised: 1 September 2023 (AI) technology (Luan et al. 2020). A total of 85% of Americans utilised at least one AI-
Accepted: 4 September 2023 powered tool, according to Reinhart (2018). People frequently do not recognise the existence
Published: 7 September 2023 of AI applications, nevertheless (Tai 2020). Artificial intelligence is applied in practically
every aspect of life because of the quick advancement of cybernetic technology. However,
some of them are still viewed as future, even sci-fi, technologies that are disassociated from
the reality of existence.
Copyright: © 2023 by the author.
According to Gansser and Reich (2021), AI is just a technology that was created
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
to improve human existence and assist individuals in specific situations. According to
This article is an open access article
Darko et al. (2020), AI is the primary technological advancement of the Fourth Industrial
distributed under the terms and
Revolution (Industry 4.0). AI is employed for many good purposes, such as sickness
conditions of the Creative Commons
diagnosis, resource preservation, disaster prediction, educational advancement, crime
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
prevention, and risk reduction at work (Brooks 2019). According to Hartwig (2021), AI will
4.0/).
increase productivity, open up new options, lessen human mistakes, take on the burden

Soc. Sci. 2023, 12, 502. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12090502 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/socsci

Soc. Sci. 2023, 12, 502 2 of 24

of addressing complicated issues, and complete monotonous chores. These advantages of

AI may therefore free up time for learning, experimentation, and discovery, which might
ultimately improve human creativity and quality of life.
Numerous anticipated future breakthroughs in AI are listed in a study created by
the OECD (2019). The employment market, education, health care, and national secu-
rity are just a few of the sectors where AI technology is expected to improve things
(Zhang and Dafoe 2019). As a result of these advantages, we would anticipate seeing
positive views towards these good elements of AI. Even if there are aspirations for AI,
there are also worries about this technology (Kaya et al. 2022). Potential ethical, social, and
financial hazards have been extensively discussed (see, e.g., Neudert et al. 2020). A key
concern with AI is the economic hazards it poses. According to Huang and Rust (2018),
artificial intelligence threatens human services.
According to Frey and Osborne (2017), automation, including AI and robots, will put
47% of American employees at risk of losing their employment in the coming years. In a
similar vein, Acemoglu and Restrepo (2017) highlighted the fact that robots lower costs
and claimed that the US economy is losing between 360,000 and 670,000 jobs annually as a
result of robotics. They also emphasised that anticipated overall employment losses will be
far higher if developments proceed at the projected rate. Studies from Gerlich (2023) on
virtual influencers show that trust and acceptance of AI-run influencers increase compared
to human influencers. Furthermore, according to Bossman (2016), the gains will be dis-
tributed to a smaller group of individuals as a result of employment losses, which would
exacerbate the problem of inequality among people on a worldwide level. In addition to
economic hazards, AI may result in several security issues. High-profile AI use is raising
concerns since it is unlawful, biased, and discriminatory and infringes on human rights
(Gillespie et al. 2021). It was also emphasised that AI might lead to ethical problems and
social anxiety (OECD 2019). Racism caused by AI-powered decision systems, potential data
privacy violations, such as client tapping using AI technologies, and biased, discriminatory
algorithms that disregard human rights (Circiumaru 2022) are some of the ethical issues
that are frequently brought up. Other challenges that are frequently highlighted include
security holes caused by AI systems, problems with law and administration arising from
deploying these technologies, a lack of societal confidence in AI, and unreasonable expecta-
tions from AI. People may have unfavourable views towards these undesirable elements of
AI. This study aims to investigate the attitudes of citizens towards AI in developed and
developing countries.

Research Contribution
To be competitive, organisations must keep up with technological changes, especially
in this quickly evolving digital era when e-commerce, mobile technology, and the Internet
of Things are gaining popularity. Businesses must adopt technological breakthroughs
like artificial intelligence, but it may be even more crucial to fully comprehend these
approaches and their effects to implement them with the highest accuracy and precision.
To improve the match between AI applications and consumer demands, businesses must
comprehend both the technological and behavioural elements of their clients. All of
this needs to be considered to possibly enhance the overall impact at different stages
during the adoption process, eventually increasing user confidence and resolving peoples’
problems. This survey intends to shed light on how people throughout the world feel
about artificial intelligence. The results are anticipated to improve knowledge of the
variables influencing public acceptability of AI and their potential effects on adoption
and dissemination. The study could potentially spot possible obstacles to the general
deployment of AI and offer solutions.
The current scholarly landscape reveals a conspicuous paucity of empirical studies
centred on the general public’s perceptions of artificial intelligence, thereby offering a fertile
ground for additional inquiry (Pillai and Sivathanu 2020). Gerlich’s (2023) study unearthed
intriguing patterns of consumer behaviour, particularly when the majority of participants
Soc. Sci. 2023, 12, 502 3 of 24

professed a belief in the sincerity of AI-driven influencers, perceiving them as devoid of

self-interest. Despite a prolific corpus of literature addressing multiple facets of artificial
intelligence and its attendant challenges for the business sector, a discernible lacuna persists.
There remains an unaddressed question concerning societal preparedness for the imminent
transformations and prevailing sentiments towards avant-garde technologies such as chat-
bots, artificial intelligence, and other intricate tools. Artificial intelligence, still in a nascent
stage of development, poses considerable uncertainties regarding its future trajectory, a
point underscored by Kaplan and Haenlein (2019). For a more nuanced understanding
and judicious exploitation of artificial intelligence, it is imperative to consider multiple
dimensions, including but not limited to enforcement, employment, ethics, education,
entente, and evolution. According to prevailing academic discourse, public sentiment
wields substantial influence over the assimilation of emergent technologies, significantly
affecting adoption decisions (Lichtenthaler 2020). An array of scholarly endeavours fo-
cuses on the scrutiny of intangible assets such as social networks, virtual worlds, and
artificial intelligence (Borges et al. 2020). However, equal attention ought to be accorded to
the human element—specifically, attitudes and perceptions vis-à-vis the incorporation of
cutting-edge technology—as these are critical determinants of organisational success and
competitive edge. Astonishingly, scant research exists that assesses technological advance-
ment and digital metamorphosis within corporate frameworks from the perspective of
employees’ attitudes towards technological innovation. This present investigation aims to
partly ameliorate this scholarly void by examining public sentiments and perspectives on
the adoption and deployment of artificial intelligence. By addressing this research gap, both
academic institutions and business enterprises stand to gain invaluable insights, thereby
enabling strategies to mitigate the most salient elements fuelling public resistance towards
AI acceptance.
Key questions addressed in this research work include the following:
R1 What is the public’s perception of AI in Western countries?
R2 What factors influence public attitudes towards AI?
R3 What are the potential consequences of public attitudes towards AI for its adoption
and diffusion?
The research work has been performed around these questions. The research is based
on analysing the existing studies to filter out the factors and then using them to collect
primary data and perform tests and modelling to reach a conclusion.

2. Materials and Methods

The research approach for this study was an ex post facto survey that was correlational,
cross-sectional, and non-experimental. This study is non-experimental since it depends
on measurement and excludes researcher intervention. Non-experimental designs are
intended to look at variance among the sample’s participants. Non-experimental designs
enable the analysis of the connections between variables. Multiple justifications are given
by McMillan and Schumacher (2014) to support the significance of linkages in educational
research. Relationships allow the researcher to identify potential reasons for significant
educational outcomes at the preliminary stage. Additionally, this study is correlational.
A correlational design, according to Creswell and Guetterman (2019), is acceptable if the
purpose of the study is to link two or more variables to look at how they impact one another.
They distinguished between two categories of correlational designs: prediction designs,
which are effective in making predictions, and explanatory designs, which are used to
explain correlations between variables.
This study uses a mixed-methods approach, including both quantitative and qualita-
tive data collection and analysis. A survey questionnaire was administered to a representa-
tive sample of citizens in the US and European countries to assess their perceptions of AI.
The survey also included questions about demographic characteristics, such as age, gender,
education, and income.
Soc. Sci. 2023, 12, 502 4 of 24

Cross-sectional and longitudinal survey designs were contrasted by Creswell and

Guetterman (2019). For this study, a cross-sectional survey approach was employed since
data were collected all at once. According to Creswell and Guetterman (2019), cross-
sectional survey methods are useful for learning about current attitudes, views, or beliefs.
Ex post facto designs are used to examine if one or more pre-existing issues may have led
to subsequent discrepancies in the subject groups (McMillan and Schumacher 2014).
A total of 625 responses from the US, 321 from the UK, 265 from Germany, and 199 from
Switzerland were recorded for the questionnaire circulated in business schools from these
countries. Of the total of 1410 responses received, 21 responses were incomplete and hence
were discarded, leaving a total of 1389 responses in total as a sample size. In this research,
a hybrid sampling approach was employed, blending elements of both convenience and
volunteer sampling as well as a stratified random sampling technique within a very specific
demographic: students and faculty members from business schools. This choice was guided
by the assumption that individuals within this demographic, by virtue of their educational
background and professional orientation, are likely to have at least rudimentary, if not
advanced, interactions with AI technologies. Given that these individuals are often the
vanguard of technological adoption within organisations, we deemed their perspectives to
be particularly enlightening for the study.
The sample comprised a balanced representation of genders and diverse socio-economic
backgrounds, thus mitigating potential biases. Moreover, the sample size of 1389 was de-
rived from a power analysis, aligning with Cohen’s (1988) recommendations, and permits
a margin of error of approximately 3% at a 95% confidence level.
Multistage data collection processes were implemented, starting with an eligibility
screen based on a pre-defined set of criteria relevant to business school affiliations and
familiarity with AI. These safeguards assure us of the validity and reliability of our findings.
The QuestionPro platform was used for participants’ convenience.
The sampling strategy, while focused on a specific educational and professional subset,
was meticulously designed to capture nuanced viewpoints on AI from those most likely to
be at the intersection of technology and business.
Focus groups are a qualitative research method used to elicit opinions, ideas, and
comments from a broad range of people about a certain idea, concept, or subject. They are
led by a qualified facilitator who keeps the conversation on track and pushes participants
to be candid with one another. Focus groups are well-liked for a variety of reasons, such
as deep understanding, catching non-verbal clues, various opinions, cost effectiveness,
etc. It is crucial to remember that focus groups have limits as well. Individual answers
can be influenced by group dynamics, and participants may not always convey their
genuine emotions because of social desirability bias or other issues. The outcomes of
focus groups may also not be reflective of the general public due to the limited sample
size. In addition, a series of focus group discussions was conducted to gather more in-
depth insights into participants’ attitudes towards AI. These focus groups were conducted
country-wise for both positive and negative viewpoints. In this study, there were two
focus groups created for each nation. The participants were either students or faculty
members of business schools. Participants were split into two groups: one that heard
favourable things spoken about AI, and the other that heard unfavourable things said
about AI. The focus group members were asked at the start of the session whether they saw
AI favourably (as a solution to many issues facing humanity) or negatively (AI would bring
about humanity’s demise). The methodology employed for all eight focus groups can be
categorised as a staged, or phased, qualitative approach. This research design facilitates the
capturing of rich, nuanced data by organising the focus group interactions into distinct yet
interconnected stages (Morgan 1996). Each stage serves to fulfil specific research objectives,
as delineated in progressive inquiry models (Krueger and Casey 2015).
In the initial stage, the research aims to establish baseline attitudes, serving essen-
tially as a diagnostic phase. This provides foundational data against which the findings
of subsequent stages may be compared (Maxwell 2013). The second stage introduces
Soc. Sci. 2023, 12, 502 5 of 24

curated arguments to participants, acting as an initial intervention designed to provoke

contemplation and perhaps modify entrenched beliefs (Flick 2018). The third stage is an
innovative incorporation of perspectives from authoritative figures. It allows for the exami-
nation of the impact of expert opinions on public sentiment, a phenomenon extensively
studied in the literature under the influence of perceived authority (Cialdini 1984). In
methodological terms, this stage might be considered an ‘authority intervention’, aiming
to assess the sway of authoritative figures on lay opinions (Asch 1955). Finally, the fourth
stage serves as a reflective phase, wherein participants acknowledge the limitations of
their understanding (Kvale and Brinkmann 2009). This stage provides insights into the
cumulative effects of diverse types of information and perspectives, contributing to a more
nuanced comprehension of the topic.
Overall, this staged approach resembles an iterative, multi-layered funnel that nar-
rows from general opinions to specific, informed attitudes, incorporating different forms of
informational inputs at each stage (Greenbaum 1998). It also has a longitudinal dimension,
offering a temporal depth to the data by tracking the evolution of participant attitudes
within a single research setting (Longhurst 2016). This methodological design proves par-
ticularly beneficial for exploring complex and polarised topics (Denzin and Lincoln 2005),
where initial viewpoints may be strongly held but are subject to modification upon the
introduction of new, credible information (Creswell and Creswell 2017). The results of
the focus groups were then utilised as an additional layer of validation for the survey
answer data.

2.1. Structural Equation Modelling

According to Meyers et al. (2013), structural equation modelling (SEM) is a statistical
technique used to analyse structural models that contain latent variables. SEM can be
used to analyse both measurement models and structural models, two distinct types of
models. The measuring model evaluates how well the relationships between the observed
variables mirror the expected relationships between the variables. If the data from the
observed models and the hypothesised model are congruent, the structural equation model
may be used to represent the hypothesised model. The nature of the study hypothesis
justifies using structural equation modelling as a method for data analysis. This study’s
major focus was the structural model, and its applicability in light of the observed model
was investigated.
GSCA (version 1.2.1) software’s structural equation modelling analysis (SEM) was
used to evaluate the hypothesis. Models for both measurements and structures may
be examined using the data analysis technique known as SEM. Since it can be studied
independently of the measurement model, the structural model was the investigation’s
primary focus (Meyers et al. 2013).

2.2. Definition of Variables

The questionnaire (Appendix A) had a total of 46 questions, which were recorded on
6-point Likert Scale. These questions were further grouped into seven broad categories to
record the understanding and responses of the respondents in detail while reducing the
number of variables to the bare minimum. The list of broad categories and their respective
question attributes are given below:
1. Perceived benefits of AI: this variable explores people’s attitudes towards the benefits
that AI can provide, such as increased efficiency, accuracy, and convenience.
2. Perceived risks of AI: this variable explores people’s attitudes towards the risks
associated with AI, such as job displacement, privacy concerns, and the potential for
AI to be used for malicious purposes.
3. Trust in AI: this variable explores the level of trust that people have in AI, including
their perceptions of AI’s reliability and predictability.
Soc. Sci. 2023, 12, 502 6 of 24

4. Societal issues and frustrations: this variable explores how societal issues such as
politics, climate change, and social inequality may impact people’s attitudes towards
AI, as well as how they perceive AI’s potential to address these issues.
5. Demographic factors: this variable explores how factors such as age, gender, education
level, and income may impact people’s attitudes towards AI.
6. Exposure to AI: this variable explores how people’s level of exposure to AI, including
their use of AI-powered products and services, may impact their attitudes towards AI.
7. Cultural factors: the impact of cultural factors on the usage and adoption of AI
in society.
Demographics:
• Country;
• Age;
• Gender;
• Education;
• Income;
Perceived benefits of AI;
• Increases efficiency and accuracy;
• Offers convenience and saves time;
• Improves decision-making processes;
• Helps solve complex problems;
• Leads to cost savings;
• Creates new job opportunities.
Perceived Risks of AI:
• Leads to job displacement;
• Violates privacy concerns;
• Used for malicious purposes;
• Causes errors and mistakes;
• Perpetuates bias and discrimination;
• Unintended consequences.
Trust in AI:
• Performs tasks accurately.
• Makes reliable decisions.
• Is predictable.
• Confidence in AI’s ability to learn.
• Keeps my personal data secure.
• Used ethically.
• Less or no personal interests compared to humans.
Governmental/societal issues:
• The government does not solve important issues like climate change.
• AI can help address societal issues such as climate change and social inequality.
• Governments cannot solve global issues.
• AI has the potential to solve global issues.
• Politicians and countries have too many vested interests.
• AI has the potential to make society more equitable.
• AI can help create solutions to societal issues.
Usage of/exposure to AI:
• Use AI-powered products and services frequently.
• Basic understanding of what AI is and how it works.
• Zero experience with AI.
• Comfortable using AI-powered products and services.
• Encountered issues with AI-powered products and services in the past.
Soc. Sci. 2023, 12, 502 7 of 24

Cultural influence and AI:

• Cultural background influences my attitudes towards AI.
• Different cultures may have different perceptions of AI.
• AI development should take cultural differences into account.
• Cultural beliefs impact my level of trust in AI.
• Cultural diversity can bring unique perspectives to the development and use of AI.
Future perspectives:
• AI is the future of humankind.
• AI is the end of humankind.
Apart from these, some free text questions were also asked to the respondents on
each broader category topic to capture the peculiar points, but the response level for those
questions was very thin (~5%), so these questions are not included in the quantitative study.
A detailed questionnaire has been appended to the annexure.

3. Literature Review
The idea of how people feel about artificial intelligence has recently come into focus
and grown in significance. The perceptions of AI and the variables influencing them are
of increasing interest (Schepman and Rodway 2022). Neudert et al. (2020) showed that
many people worry about the hazards of utilising AI after conducting extensive studies
including 142 nations and 154,195 participants. Similarly to this, Zhang and Dafoe (2019)
conducted a survey involving 2000 American individuals and discovered that a sizable
fraction of the participants (41%) favoured the development of AI while another 22% were
opposed to it. The majority of people have a favourable attitude towards robots and AI,
according to a large-scale study that included 27,901 individuals from several European
nations (European Commission & Directorate-General for Communications Networks,
Content & Technology 2017). It was also emphasised that attitudes are mostly a function
of knowledge: higher levels of education and Internet usage were linked to attitudes that
were more favourable towards AI. Additionally, it was shown that individuals who were
younger and male had more favourable views about AI than participants who were female
and older. While numerous demographic determinants of AI views have been identified in
earlier studies, there is still a significant need to explore them in many cultural contexts.
The 2023 study of Gerlich on AI-run influencers (virtual influencers) showed that the
study participants showed more trust and comfort with an AI than human influencers.
Therefore, there may be a variety of factors influencing a person’s propensity to adopt AI
in particular application areas. In a thorough study, Park and Woo (2022) discovered that
the adoption of AI-powered applications was predicted by personality traits; psychological
factors like inner motivation, self-efficacy, voluntariness, and performance expectation;
and technological factors like perceived practicality, perceived ease of use, technology
complexity, and relative advantage. It was also discovered that facilitating factors, such
as user experience and cost; factors related to personal values, such as optimism about
science and technology, anthropocentrism, and ideology; and factors regarding risk per-
ception, such as perceived risk, perceived benefit, positive views of technology, and trust
in government, were significantly associated with the acceptance of smart information
technologies. Additionally, subjective norms, culture, technological efficiency, perceived
job loss, confidence, and hedonic variables all have an impact on people’s adoption of AI
technologies (Kaya et al. 2022). The results of another study including 6054 individuals in
the US, Australia, Canada, Germany, and the UK showed that people’s confidence in AI is
low and that trust is crucial for AI acceptance (Gillespie et al. 2021).
The Special Eurobarometer, which was conducted in 2017, investigated not only how
digital technology affects society, the economy, and quality of life but also how the general
public feels about artificial intelligence (AI), robots, and their ability to do a variety of
activities. Overall, 61% of respondents from Europe were enthusiastic about AI and robots,
whereas 30% were disapproving. Additionally, it was claimed that exposure to robots
Soc. Sci. 2023, 12, 502 8 of 24

or artificial intelligence is likely to have a good impact on their attitudes. Furthermore,

68% of respondents concur that AI and robots are good for society since they may assist
with household chores. However, over 90% still think that in order to handle hazards and
security issues, AI and robots need cautious management. 70% of respondents also voiced
concern about the possibility of job loss as a result of the use of AI and robots. Additionally,
only a small percentage of respondents feel at ease with AI or robots performing tasks
like driving a driverless car (22%), operating on patients with robots (26%), and receiving
items with robots or drones (35%). With the proliferation of AI application governance
in the future, understanding public views and opinions has become more important over
time. To better understand Americans’ attitudes about AI applications in general and in
governance in particular, the Centre for the Governance of AI polled 2000 American adults
in a manner akin to that of the Eurobarometer (2017). The results demonstrated a mixed
attitude towards future support for the development of AI: 41% of respondents support
it, while 22% oppose it somewhat or severely. However, just 23% of Americans had an
unfavourable view of AI applications, whereas 77% of Americans believed AI will have a
good influence or be somewhat useful in the job and lives of civilians in the next 10 years
(Zhang and Dafoe 2019).
The research also identified the contribution of income, education, and gender to the
advancement of AI. It showed that male respondents who are more literate or wealthy or
have technical experience prefer AI and support its use. It is also important to note that
82% of Americans agreed that the government should carefully monitor AI and robotics
given the hazards that have not yet been addressed.
This leads to the conclusion that attitudes towards and the reasons for the acceptance of
AI technology are complex structures made up of several elements. In order to gain a wider
perspective and a deeper understanding of society’s response to these recently discovered
technologies, it may be beneficial to investigate the variables influencing attitudes towards
AI. In the current study, we looked at the influence of a few personal variables and, in part,
the interaction of broad and specific predictive variables in predicting attitudes towards AI.
But before we discuss the methodology around the current research, it will be pragmatic to
understand the underlying theories.

3.1. The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Usage of Technology

Civilians have been utilising technology and information systems to raise the standard
of living thanks to the technological and informational revolution of the 20th and 21st
centuries. To increase efficiency, organisations use technology in their daily operations.
The technology needs to be adopted and used by customers or employees in order to
achieve that goal. Therefore, a critical challenge in the life of any information system is
to understand how users perceive innovative technology and the elements that impact
their acceptance or rejection behaviour (Sivathanu and Pillai 2019). The unified Theory of
Acceptance and Use of Technology (henceforth UTAUT), published in 2003 by Venkatesh
et al., is one of the most effective models ever created to predict technology acceptance and
adoption intention of new technology (Lai 2017). Performance expectancy, effort expectancy,
and social influence were suggested as three direct determinants of behaviour intentions by
Venkatesh et al. (2003) after reviewing eight prior theories of technology acceptance. Usage
intention and facilitating conditions were suggested as two direct determinants of usage
behaviour. Theories of technological acceptability have been developed as a result of this
progression (Momani and Jamous 2017).
The degree to which one expects that AI will improve their performance or work is
known as performance expectancy (PE). It is built using related components including
outcome expectancy, relative advantage, and perceived usefulness from the technology
acceptance model (TAM) (Davis et al. 1989). According to Davis et al. (1989), perceived
usefulness refers to how much a person believes that employing technology would im-
prove their performance. In the research on system utilisation, the perceived impacts on
performance components had the strongest association with one’s own self-prediction of
Soc. Sci. 2023, 12, 502 9 of 24

system usage. According to Brandtzaeg and Følstad (2017), a key motivator for AI (in the
form of chatbot) usage intention is the expectation of a chatbot’s productivity, which is
defined as how well it helps users gain important information in a short period and almost
at any moment.
The term “effort expectancy” (EE) describes how simple or easy it is to utilise AI
systems or apps. The perceived ease of use from the technology acceptance model (TAM)
and the complexity of the system to comprehend and use are among the components of
effort expectation. According to Davis (1989), perceived ease of use refers to how little effort
a person thinks utilising a certain system would need. As a result, if one programme is
thought to be more user-friendly than another, it is more likely to be adopted. The perceived
ease of use not only directly affects usage intentions but also has an effect on perceived
usefulness since, when all other factors are held constant, the perceived usefulness of a
system increases with perceived ease of use.
According to Venkatesh et al. (2003), social influence (SI) is the extent to which a
person’s close friends or family members think he or she should adopt AI systems or
applications. In the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen 2005), social influence is modelled
as subjective norms and functions as a direct predictor of usage intention. Subjective norms
are determined by an individual’s perception of whether peers, significant persons, or major
collective groupings believe that a specific behaviour should be carried out. The motivation
to comply, which weighs the social pressures one feels to conform their behaviour to
others’ expectations, and normative views, which relate to how significant others see or
approve of the performed behaviour, decide it (Hale et al. 2003). According to the study by
Gursoy et al. (2019), consumers consider their friends and family to be the most valuable
sources of information when making decisions. Users have been seen to absorb the customs
and ideas of their social groups and behave accordingly, particularly with regard to their
intentions for using technological applications like online services.
The term “facilitating conditions” (FC) describes how much a person thinks they
have the tools or organisational backing to make using AI applications easier. According
to the Theory of Planned Behaviours, the perception of perceived behavioural control is
likewise a facilitating condition (Ajzen 2005). People who perceive themselves to have
behavioural control believe they have the skills and resources needed to carry out the
behaviour. The greater the capacity and resources people feel themselves to possess, the
greater the influence that perceived behavioural control has on behaviour. Two effects
of perceived behaviour control are also supported by the Theory of Planned Behaviours.
It may affect someone’s intention to act in a particular way. Our intention to behave
is greater the more control we believe we have over our behaviour. Ajzen (2005) also
raised the idea of perceived behaviour. Further, Venkatesh et al. (2003) examined the
moderating impacts of the variables of gender, age, experience, and voluntarism use and
discovered an improvement in the testing model’s predictive power when moderating
factors were included. Age, for example, was shown to mitigate all of the interactions
between behavioural intentions and determinants (Venkatesh et al. 2003).
Additionally, Venkatesh et al. (2003) investigated the three variables of attitude, self-
efficacy, and anxiety and came to the conclusion that they do not directly affect behavioural
intention. The four primary UATUT components and these external factors are still being
looked at by numerous academics in their models. Since its inception, UTAUT has gained
popularity as a paradigm for several analyses of the behaviour of technology adoption. In
addition to re-examining the original models, researchers also take into account theoretical
and fresh external factors. Williams et al. (2015) found that perceptions of ease of use,
usefulness, attitude, perceived risk, gender, income, and experience have a significant
impact on behavioural intention, while perceptions of age, anxiety, and training have less
of an impact.
Depending on the particular study environment, social influence and facilitat-
ing conditions demonstrated their value in various ways. For instance, according to
Alshehri et al. (2012), facilitating conditions have weakly favourable effects on Saudi resi-
Soc. Sci. 2023, 12, 502 10 of 24

dents’ intentions to use and accept e-government services, whereas social influence has little
effect on such intentions. In contrast, social influence was found to be the most significant
and direct determinant of acceptance intention in a study by Jaradat and Al Rababaa (2013)
about the drivers of usage acceptance of mobile commerce in Jordan, whereas facilitating
conditions was suggested to have no significant effects on usage intention. Additionally, it
is advised that moderating variables be investigated because the moderating effects may
differ depending on the testing contexts.

3.2. AI Device Use Acceptance Model (AIDUA)

To improve the precision of our forecasts, we must take into account theoretical
models created with the express intent of gauging the acceptability of AI. Traditional
technology acceptance models (i.e., TAM and UTAUT) should only be used to examine
non-intelligent technology, according to Gursoy et al. (2019), as their predictors are useless
for AI adoption. To research consumer acceptability of AI technologies, they created the AI
device use acceptability model (AIDUA). The AIDUA builds on prior acceptance models by
examining user experience at three different levels (primary appraisal, secondary appraisal,
and result stage) to investigate user acceptance of AI agents.
According to Gursoy et al. (2019), customers should base their major appraisal of an
AI device’s value on social impact, hedonic motivation, and anthropomorphism. Hedonic
incentive is the term used to describe the outward pleasure that using AI technology would
appear to provide. Anthropomorphism defines human traits that technology could try
to replicate, such as how people seem. Based on their perceptions of the performance
expectation and effort expectation of the AI device, consumers would weigh the costs
and benefits of the device, which would result in the creation of feelings towards the AI
(Gursoy et al. 2019). The early evaluation phase, which also affects whether customers will
accept or reject the technology, determines the result stage (Gursoy et al. 2019). The unwill-
ingness to use AI technology in favour of human aid is objectionable. This two-pronged
outcome stage differs from traditional acceptance models, which is useful for researchers
who do not view acceptance and rejection as diametrically opposed concepts. For in-
stance, a user may disapprove of Amazon due to moral concerns, yet they nevertheless
demonstrate their acceptance by utilising the service.

3.3. Perceived Risks of AI

The term “perceived risk” was originally used by Bauer in his work from 1960 and
refers to worries about the negative effects of a certain action. It typically arises when
dealing with options since the result of a choice cannot be known until after it has been
made. This introduces uncertainty and hazards, which are typically viewed as unpleasant
and anxious-inducing. Numerous studies have examined the effects of perceived risk on
the uptake of products and services (Featherman and Pavlou 2003). He further broke down
perceived risk into six primary dimensions, (1) financial, (2) performance, (3) psychological,
(4) safety, (5) opportunity/time social, and (6) loss, in order to better understand how
perceived risk affects adoption behaviour.
According to Man Hong et al. (2018), the following are the facets of perceived risks:
• Time Risk: the risk that might have an influence on how important time, convenience,
and effort are when buying or replacing items.
• Physical danger: a danger that might have negative effects on one’s health and vitality.
• Psychological Risk: the possibility of losing confidence or self-esteem.
• Social danger: a danger that affects one’s standing or social group connections.
• Financial risk is the possibility that one’s assets or fortune may be harmed.
• Performance risk is the possibility that a product will not work as intended or will not
produce the desired results.
Numerous investigations using technology systems and information system adoption
behaviour have also accepted the approach. For instance, Featherman and Pavlou (2003)
investigated seven aspects of perceived risks in their study on predicting e-service adoption
Soc. Sci. 2023, 12, 502 11 of 24

and came to the conclusion that performance-related risks (privacy, financial, and time risk)
had a significant inhibitory effect on usage intentions for electric bill payment systems.

3.4. AI Adoption and Cultural Bias

According to Arrow et al. (2017), the length of time it takes for an invention to
be adopted depends on when people first learn about it. In addition to significant
individual and overall variations in innovation adoption patterns among consumers,
Restuccia and Rogerson (2017) found significant variations in innovation adoption pat-
terns between markets. There are then questions about whether various consumer groups
behave differently across nations and what factors affect the differences in consumer adop-
tion rates of AI. Combining the aforementioned concepts results in a comprehensive model
that takes into account temporal arrangements among diverse groupings of individual
adopters. According to Tubadji and Nijkamp (2016), if the local culture is not sufficiently
receptive to unique ideas, the generation of creative investment ideas may be inhibited.
However, even if a novel idea succeeds in slipping through the cultural net and coming to
fruition, its adoption, replication, and dissemination will still be influenced by the degree
to which local social and business networks are interconnected, with network intercon-
nectedness also being culturally dependent (Verdier and Zenou 2017). Beyond attitudes
to uncertainty, many examples illustrate the effect of cultural bias on economic choice.
Cultural biases are known to affect preferences for types of income distribution, gender
roles, developments of financial institutions, crime, competitiveness, economic produc-
tivity, work culture, and socio-economic development (Guiso et al. 2006). Culture seems
to pervade all economic systems, making it unlikely that any sector including artificial
intelligence adoption is spared from this powerful cultural effect.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Demographic Analysis
A total of 1389 responses were found to be complete, and these were taken as the
sample size for research. Of the 1389 responses, 53% were recorded for males and 47% were
recorded for females. This figure was consistent across countries and the overall combined
data. So, there is no chance of any skewness in the results because of the change of gender
weightage in responses.
Referring to the age factor (Figure 1), a fair representation was found for all of the
age groups in the sample. Approx. 26% of respondents were between the ages of 18 and
24 years, another 25% were for the age group between 25 and 34 years, and 23% of the total
responses were from people between 35 and 44 years old. So, it can be safely inferred that
the responses recorded and the results thereof are a fair representation of the public at large
and are not concentrated on a particular age group.
From the finished education standpoint (Figure 2), most of the respondents are ed-
ucated to a bachelor’s level. This means that the respondents have a fair level of under-
standing of the subject and are educated to the level that they can give a fair and legitimate
opinion on the matter that is not based on a random selection of responses owing to lack of
knowledge. These people are the building blocks of the nation and are also the major users
of the Internet and the services that can be related to artificial intelligence.
Looking at the income levels (Figure 3), ~75% of the respondents are people who
earn <USD 100 K per annum. The reason for the concentration of such respondents in the
sample is that these people are approachable using the means adopted for circulating the
questionnaire. Also, these are the people who devote time to fill in online questionnaires
and are widely impacted by the adoption and proliferation of any new technology.
Table 1 shows below the mean values of the demography-related responses for all
countries and the total questionnaire. This table further validates the assumption that the
distribution of all respondents across countries is almost the same, and no skewness or
spurious result is anticipated because of any outliers in a certain category. The distribution
Soc. Sci. 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 25

Soc. Sci. 2023, 12, 502 12 of 24

Soc. Sci. 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 25

of the sample population across nations on the parameters of age, gender, education, and
income is almost the same.

Figure 1. Age distribution of participants.

From the finished education standpoint (Figure 2), most of the respondents are edu-
cated to a bachelor’s level. This means that the respondents have a fair level of under-
standing of the subject and are educated to the level that they can give a fair and legitimate
opinion on the ma er that is not based on a random selection of responses owing to lack
of knowledge. These people are the building blocks of the nation and are also the major
Figure 1.1. Age
users of
Figure AgeInternet
the distribution ofthe
andof
distribution participants.
services that can be related to artificial intelligence.
participants.

From the finished education standpoint (Figure 2), most of the respondents are edu-
cated to a bachelor’s level. This means that the respondents have a fair level of under-
standing of the subject and are educated to the level that they can give a fair and legitimate
opinion on the ma er that is not based on a random selection of responses owing to lack
of knowledge. These people are the building blocks of the nation and are also the major
users of the Internet and the services that can be related to artificial intelligence.

Figure2.2. Finished
Figure Finishededucation
educationdistribution
distributionof
ofparticipants.
participants.

Table Looking at theof

1. Mean values income levels (Figure 3), ~75% of the respondents are people who earn
the demography.
<USD 100 K per annum. The reason for the concentration of such respondents in the sam-
ple isCountry
that these people are
Ageapproachable using
Gender the means adopted
Educationfor circulating the ques-
Income
tionnaire. Also, these are the people who devote time to fill in online questionnaires and
CH 2.47 1.53 3.20 1.79
are widely
DE impacted by the2.28adoption and proliferation
1.53 of any new technology.1.73
3.28
Figure 2. Finished education distribution of participants.
UK 2.29 1.53 3.28 1.70
Looking
USA at the income
2.28levels (Figure 3), ~75% of the respondents
1.54 3.27 are people who earn
1.71
<USD 100 K
Grand Total per annum. The
2.31 reason for the concentration
1.53 of such
3.26 respondents 1.72the sam-
in
ple is that these people are approachable using the means adopted for circulating the ques-
tionnaire. Also, these are the people who devote time to fill in online questionnaires and
are widely impacted by the adoption and proliferation of any new technology.
 Soc.Sci.
Soc. Sci.2023,
2023,12,
12,502
x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 24
13 of 25

Figure3.3. Income
Figure Income distribution
distribution of
ofparticipants.
participants.

Table 1 shows
4.2. Regression Model below the mean values of the demography-related responses for all
countries and
A regressionthe total questionnaire.
test (Table Thisperformed
3) has been table further
as avalidates
next stepthetoassumption that the
check the validity
distribution
of the responsesof all respondents
captured underacross countries is almost
the perception-related the same,
questions. Theand no skewness
perception or
or the
spurious
future result
usage is anticipated
of AI because
tools is taken as theof any outliers
dependent in a certain
variable. category. Thevariables
The independent distribution
are
of the
the sample
basic populationcomfort
understanding, across nations on the aspects,
level, cultural parameters
and of age, gender,
beliefs education, and
of the respondents. An
income has
attempt is almost the same.
been made to check if these factors contribute to the adoption and acceptance
of AI.
TableThe
1. Mean valueshypotheses
proposed of the demography.
are shown in Table 2:
Country Age Gender Education Income
Table 2. Hypothesis structure.
CH 2.47 1.53 3.20 1.79
Hypothesis No. DE Hypothesis 2.28
Null 1.53 3.28Hypothesis
Alternate 1.73
UK of AI directly
Basic understanding 2.29
relates to 1.53Basic understanding3.28of AI does not relate
1.70to
1 perception that AIUSA 2.28 climatic, perception
is the solution to societal, 1.54 3.27
that AI is the solution to societal,1.71
climatic,
Grand Total
and global issues 2.31 1.53 and 3.26
global issues 1.72
Comfort of using AI directly relates to the perception Comfort of using AI does not relate to the perception
2 4.2.solution
that AI is the Regression Model climatic, and global
to societal, that AI is the solution to societal, climatic, and global
issues issues
A regression test (Table 3) has been performed as a next step to check the validity of
Cultural background
the responsesof people directly
captured relates
under thetoperception-related
the Cultural background of people
questions. does not relate
The perception or to thefu-
the
3 perception that AI is the solution to societal, climatic, perception that AI is the solution to societal, climatic,
ture usage of AI tools is taken as the dependent variable.
and global issues
The independent variables are
and global issues
the basic understanding, comfort level, cultural aspects, and beliefs of the respondents.
Cultural beliefs of people directly relate to the Cultural beliefs of people do not relate to the
An a empt has been made to check if these factors contribute to the adoption and ac-
4 perception that AI is the solution to societal, climatic, perception that AI is the solution to societal, climatic,
ceptance andofglobal
AI. issues and global issues
The proposed hypotheses are shown in Table 2:
People believe that AI is the future, and, hence, there People do not believe that AI is the future, and,
5 is a perception that AI is the solution to societal, hence, there is a perception that AI is the solution to
Table 2. Hypothesis structure.
climatic, and global issues societal, climatic, and global issues
Hypothesis No. Null Hypothesis Alternate Hypothesis
Basic
The understanding
average of AI
score for the directly about
questions relatesthe
Basic
AI understanding
being the futureofofAImankind
does notisrelate
3.98,
1 which shows a positive inclination. Respondents feel that AI is going to besolution
to perception that AI is the solution to so- to perception that AI is the the futureto so-
of
life. But iscietal, climatic, and
this perception global issues
supported by the underlyingcietal, climatic,That
reasons? andwasglobal issues
tested by the
Comfort
regression model,of using
and itAI
wasdirectly
found relates
that thetocoefficients
the Comfort of of using
these AI does
factors werenot
notrelate to the
significant
2 perception
(p-value was >0.1,that
90%AI is the solution
confidence level).toItsocie- perceptionthat
was interesting thateach
AI is the solution
country to socie-
has a different
combination. tal,While
climatic, and globalin
respondents issues tal, climatic,
all countries expressed theirand globalwith
comfort issuesAI and
Soc. Sci. 2023, 12, 502 14 of 24

admitted to believing that AI is the future technology to solve their problems and ease
their pain points, the underlying factors gave a different picture. None of the factors had
coefficients significant at a 95% confidence level, but when checked at 90% confidence,
the overall picture was a bit better. Respondents in the UK and the US showed a basic
understanding of AI. For other countries, the coefficient of basic understanding was not
significant. All respondents refuted that cultural background has any impact on the
adoption and future use of AI. This finding is not in line with the past studies discussed in
the literature review section. However, Swiss nationals responded that AI should make
sure that it is in line with their cultural beliefs for the people to trust AI in the future. So,
with regression as well, we obtained mixed responses, and, thus, there is a need to include
more parameters in the study to check on the usage of AI in the future. This paves the path
for SEM.

Table 3. Regression results.

Paratmeter CH DE UK US Total
Multiple R 0.922 0.929 0.912 0.912 0.838
R Square 0.850 0.863 0.833 0.831 0.837
Intercept 0.547 0.803 0.825 0.900 0.484
Basic Understanding 0.358 0.575 0.092 0.093 0.267
Comfort with AI 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
p-value
Cultural Background 0.726 0.594 0.090 0.655 0.684
Cultural Belief 0.091 0.412 0.233 0.428 0.108
AI is Future 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

The final acceptance and rejection of the null hypothesis is shown in Table 4:

Table 4. Hypothesis acceptance/rejection.

Hypothesis No. CH DE UK US Combined

1 No No Yes Yes No
2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
3 No No No No No
4 Yes No No No No
5 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

4.3. Structural Equation Method

SEM was conducted on the entire set of data as mentioned in the methodology section
using GSCA software (version 1.2.1). The results of the test are as follows:
Analysis Type: basic GSCA/single group.
Number of bootstrap samples: 100.
The ALS algorithm converged in six iterations (convergence criterion = 0.0001).

H0: The proposed model is a good fit, and multiple factors directly influence the acceptability and
usage of AI in the future.
H1: The proposed model is not a good fit, and multiple factors do not influence the acceptability and
usage of AI in the future.
Soc. Sci. 2023, 12, 502 15 of 24

4.3.1. Model Fit Measures

The amount of variation across all variables (indicators and components) that a given
model specification can explain is known as FIT. The values of FIT are in the range of 0 to 1,
such as R squared in linear regression. The more variance in the variables is accounted for
by the given model, the bigger this number. For instance, FIT = 0.50 denotes that the model
explains 50% of the variation in all variables. There is no FIT cutoff that can be used as a
general indicator of a good fit. Therefore, this parameter in itself is not sufficient to draw
conclusions on the goodness of fit of the model, but this parameter, when coupled with
mean squared residuals, can provide a conclusive response on the goodness of fit.
The SRMR (standardised root mean squared residual) and the GFI (goodness-of-fit
indicator) are both proportional to the difference between the covariances in the sample
and the covariances that the parameter estimations of the GSCA replicate. According to
recent research, the following cutoff parameters for GFI and SRMR in GSCA should be
used as a general rule of thumb (Cho et al. 2020).
A GFI greater than 0.89 and an SRMR less than 1.4 imply a satisfactory fit when the
sample size is 100. While it is possible to evaluate model fit using either index, it may be
preferable to utilise the SRMR with the aforementioned cutoff value rather than the GFI
with the proposed cutoff value. Additionally, a GFI cutoff value of less than 0.85 may still
be suggestive of a good match if the SRMR is less than 0.9.
When the sample size exceeds 100, a GFI greater than 0.93 or an SRMR less than 1.2 de-
notes a satisfactory fit. In this instance, there is no preference for utilising a combination of
the indexes over using each one independently or for using one index over the other. The
proposed cutoff value for each index can be used individually to evaluate the model’s fit.
Based on these outcomes, the null hypothesis is accepted, and the model is a good
fit (Table 5) to understand and estimate the acceptability of AI in the future based on the
perception and attitude of people towards the enlisted factors.

Table 5. Model fit measures.

FIT GFI SRMR

0.586 0.945 0.133

4.3.2. Path Coefficients

Table 6 shows the estimates of path coefficients and their bootstrap standard errors
(SE) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). All of the path coefficients are within the 95%
CI level, thus indicating that the estimates are significant.

Table 6. Path coefficients.

Estimate SE 95% CI
Uses→Usages/acceptance −0.019 0.026 −0.07 0.038
Risks→Usages/acceptance −0.036 0.048 −0.13 0.055
Trust→Usages/acceptance 0.854 0.051 0.764 0.957
Issues→Usages/acceptance −0.083 0.033 −0.145 −0.015
Cultural→Usages/acceptance 0.165 0.026 0.111 0.214

4.3.3. Variable Correlations

As seen from the correlations table (Table 7), the results are very much in line with the
expectations and the theories discussed. The usage/acceptance of AI is directly impacted
by the trust, the social/governmental issues, and the current use cases of AI. The cultural
factors have the least impact on the usage of AI, whereas risks pertaining to AI have a
detrimental impact on the usage of AI. Further, the most important factor is the trust factor
for the adoption and proliferation of AI technology. People need to trust in the technology,
and the responses show that people have high trust in the calibre and prospects of AI. The
Soc. Sci. 2023, 12, 502 16 of 24

least correlated factor is the cultural background and cultural beliefs, which would require
people to understand AI better. It will take them some time to understand the impacts of
AI on cultural backgrounds and beliefs, and the factor might start playing its role after that.

Table 7. Component correlations.

Uses Risks Trust Unique Cultural Usages/Acceptance

Uses 1.0 −0.765 0.856 0.777 0.601 0.774
Risks −0.765 1.0 −0.919 −0.903 −0.608 −0.831
Trust 0.856 −0.919 1.0 0.907 0.717 0.913
Unique 0.777 −0.903 0.907 1.0 0.635 0.814
Cultural 0.601 −0.608 0.717 0.635 1.0 0.734
Usages/acceptance 0.774 −0.831 0.913 0.814 0.734 1.0

4.4. Focus Groups

For each country, two focus groups with ten participants each were created. The focus
group sessions were two hours long and guided by the author to ensure consistency over
all focus groups. One focus group per study country received only positive arguments for
AI development, while the other group received only negative arguments (from Stephen
Hawking, James Barrat, and Gary Marcus).
The focus group study was an instructive investigation into public attitudes concerning
the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in society. Utilising a meticulously designed four-stage
process, the study not only revealed the initially steadfast opinions that participants held
but also captured the nuanced ways in which these attitudes could change over the course
of a structured discussion.
In the first stage, participants manifested strongly held initial beliefs, either in favour or
against AI’s impact on society. Their initial reticence to deviate from these beliefs provided
a compelling backdrop for the subsequent phases.
The second stage saw the moderator presenting a curated set of arguments, either
advocating for or cautioning against AI. Notably, despite this added layer of complexity
and nuance, the participants largely retained their original viewpoints. Nevertheless, a dis-
cernible shift towards contemplation was observed, suggesting that while their convictions
had not been overturned, they had at least been questioned.
A critical juncture was reached in the third stage. At this point, the moderator in-
troduced perspectives from figures of public repute, either endorsing or warning against
AI. Remarkably, female participants were consistently the initial change agents, revealing
a potentially gender-specific dynamic that warrants further study. Their willingness to
modify their viewpoints seemed to act as a catalyst, enabling a more widespread attitudinal
shift among the remainder of the group.
By the fourth and final stage, a commonality had emerged among the participants:
an admission of their limited grasp of AI’s complexities. This collective acknowledgment
served as evidence that the dialogues had not just swayed viewpoints but also deepened
the overall understanding of AI’s intricate role in societal constructs.
The outcomes remained remarkably uniform across all eight focus groups: Participants
who were exposed to cogent arguments and statements either underwent a transforma-
tion in their viewpoints or remained steadfast in their existing beliefs. Individuals who
initially harboured a negative predisposition towards artificial intelligence experienced a
metamorphosis towards a more favourable disposition upon being presented exclusively
with arguments advocating the merits of AI. Conversely, participants with ambivalent
sentiments towards AI prior to their engagement in the focus group discussion found their
perspectives solidified into a more positive stance after encountering solely affirming justifi-
cations. Similarly, those who commenced the focus group session harbouring a favourable
view towards AI, but who were then exposed exclusively to arguments challenging its
societal implications, experienced a consequential shift towards a more sceptical outlook.
Participants who entered the discourse with mixed emotions concerning AI underwent a
Soc. Sci. 2023, 12, 502 17 of 24

significant transformation in their viewpoints after being confronted solely with critical
arguments. Irrespective of the participants’ preliminary attitudes prior to the focus group
discussions, the ultimate consensus gravitated towards a unified perspective, significantly
influenced by either the commendatory or critical evidence provided during the discussion.
Incorporating the significant influence exerted by public intellectuals, the third stage
of the focus group process further revealed an intriguing trend. Upon introducing the
perspectives of globally recognised figures who have been vocal on matters of AI, a pro-
nounced shift in viewpoints was observed. This finding corroborates the literature on the
role of experts in shaping public opinion; a well-cited example of this influence is evident
in Collins and Evans’ “Rethinking Expertise” (Collins and Evans 2007). Such luminaries
act as “boundary figures,” straddling the line between specialised knowledge and public
discourse, and thus possess the capacity to reshape commonly held viewpoints. In the
focus groups, the inclusion of perspectives from noted experts such as Stephen Hawking
significantly expedited this process of attitudinal transformation, highlighting the pivotal
role that these figures can play in shaping public debates and ultimately influencing policy
(Collins and Evans 2007; Brossard 2013).
The revelations from the focus groups were aligned with the well-established theory of
‘agenda-setting’, wherein the mass media and opinion leaders like academics or renowned
experts play a pivotal role in moulding public opinion (McCombs and Shaw 1972). There-
fore, the significant impact noted when introducing comments from such experts is consis-
tent with existing scholarly contributions on the dynamics of public opinion.
Continuing, the implications of this study are particularly relevant for a scenario
wherein the hypothetical development of a superintelligence threatens humanity and
necessitates decisive action from governments. Supported by previous works such as
Bostrom’s “Superintelligence” (Bostrom 2014), the focus group findings indicate that public
opinion can be both malleable and influenced by authoritative figures, lending urgency
to the need for factual, well-reasoned information dissemination, especially in matters as
consequential as the governance of transformative technologies.
Finally, the focus group study illuminates the challenges governments may face in
adopting effective policies when public opinions are so susceptible to change. A divided
and easily manipulated public makes it difficult, if not impossible, for governments to
adopt coherent, long-term strategies, a concern supported by Zollmann’s study on public
opinion and policy adoption (Zollmann 2017). This susceptibility further underscores the
importance of equipping the general populace with a robust understanding of complex
issues, as this could serve as a foundational pillar for democratic governance in an age
increasingly influenced by advanced technologies.
To support the findings, a correlation between the average responses of each major
factor and the perception of people about AI (whether AI is good for mankind or will lead
to the end of mankind) was also performed (Table 8):

Table 8. Component correlations and future perceptions of mankind.

Uses Risks Trust Uniqueness Usage Mankind Future End of Mankind

Uses 1.00
Risks −0.78 1.00
Trust 0.87 −0.92 1.00
Uniqueness 0.80 −0.90 0.92 1.00
Usage 0.71 −0.75 0.81 0.76 1.00
Mankind Future 0.83 −0.85 0.92 0.88 0.79 1.00
End of Mankind −0.73 0.80 −0.85 −0.79 −0.71 −0.82 1.00
Soc. Sci. 2023, 12, 502 18 of 24

The results of the correlation are in line with the expectations. It is seen that people
who feel AI has risks associated have a negative correlation with all of the factors like
trust, uniqueness, and usage and do not believe AI to be the future of mankind. However,
such people feel that AI would lead to the end of mankind, hence resulting in a positive
correlation. In contrast, people who believe in the uses and usage of AI have positive
correlations with trust and uniqueness and believe that AI is the future of mankind. Thus, it
can be safely inferred that the factors of trust, usage, uniqueness, and risks associated with
AI are a good fit for people to frame a perception of AI being good or bad for mankind.
The study results presented offer substantive evidence and a nuanced understanding
to answer the research questions (R1, R2, and R3) posed at the beginning of the study.
For R1, concerning the public’s perception of AI in Western countries, the data imply a
direct and significant relationship between trust and the adoption or usage of AI technology.
The factor of trust substantially influences how the public perceives AI, corroborating earlier
works that emphasise the centrality of trust in technology adoption (Lewicki et al. 1998;
Mayer et al. 1995).
For R2, which asks what factors influence public attitudes towards AI, the results
indicate multiple factors, including trust, risks, and uses, playing vital roles. Importantly,
the factor of trust is observed to be the most crucial determinant in shaping public attitudes,
consistent with the existing literature on trust as a catalyst for technological adoption
(Vance et al. 2008). Risks and uses also have significant but negative path coefficients,
suggesting that they inversely impact AI adoption or usage. This finding aligns with the
technology acceptance model (TAM), which considers perceived ease of use and perceived
usefulness as key variables (Davis 1989).
As for R3, regarding the potential consequences of public attitudes for the adoption
and diffusion of AI, the results lend themselves to two primary interpretations. First, high
levels of trust can serve as a facilitator for broader AI adoption, a notion that has been
discussed in the context of other emergent technologies (Venkatesh and Davis 2000). Second,
the negative coefficients for risks and uses indicate that misconceptions or apprehensions
about AI can serve as barriers to its adoption, aligning with Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations
theory, which posits perceived risks as impediments to the adoption of new technologies
(Rogers 2003).
The model fit indices, such as FIT, SRMR, and GFI, provide statistical validation for the
proposed model. They meet the general rules of thumb for an acceptable fit as delineated
by Cho et al. (2020). Therefore, the model appears to be robust and reliably explains the
variance in the variables, thereby bolstering the study’s findings.
Moreover, the correlations between major factors and the public’s perception of AI’s im-
pact on mankind are particularly illuminating. The results manifest that those who perceive
AI as a risk tend to be sceptical about its benefits for mankind, supporting the previous find-
ings about the impact of perceived risks on technological adoption (Venkatesh et al. 2012).

5. Discussion Summary
The salient finding that a mean score of 3.98 exists among respondents when evaluating
AI as the future of mankind warrants an in-depth discussion. While the result superficially
corresponds with Fountaine et al.’s (2019) observations about the organisational acceptance
of AI, the implication transcends mere acceptance and signifies a broader cultural embrace.
This delineation is crucial, particularly when situated against Brynjolfsson and McAfee’s
(2014) cautionary narrative about the ‘AI expectation-reality gap.’ By critically analysing
this juxtaposition, this research not only confirms but also challenges established paradigms
about societal optimism surrounding AI. Here, the study adds a layer of complexity by
demonstrating that this societal optimism persists despite a lack of statistically significant
predictors in the data.
Equally compelling is the discovery of geographical variations in attitudes towards
AI, which raises nuanced questions about the role of cultural conditioning in technology
adoption. Hofstede’s (2001) seminal work on cultural dimensions is pertinent here. The
Soc. Sci. 2023, 12, 502 19 of 24

divergence across countries in our data adds empirical richness to Hofstede’s theory,
expanding it from traditional technologies to nascent fields like AI. This effectively opens
the door for interdisciplinary inquiries that can explore the interaction between technology
and culture through varying analytical frameworks, perhaps even challenging some of
Hofstede’s dimensions in the context of rapidly evolving technologies.
Furthermore, the ethical considerations highlighted in this study provide an empirical
dimension to the normative frameworks proposed by the European Commission (2019)
and OECD (2019). While the existing literature stresses the conceptual importance of
ethics in AI (European Commission 2019; OECD 2019), the empirical data from this study
enriches this dialogue by pinpointing specific ethical attributes that currently hold societal
importance. This could have implications for policymakers and industry stakeholders, as it
elevates abstract ethical principles into empirically supported priorities.
Lastly, the use of SEM in this study finds validation in the methodological literature,
particularly the works of Hair et al. (2016). Our results strengthen their assertion that SEM
can effectively untangle complex interrelations in social science research. However, while
Hair et al. (2016) primarily address SEM’s robustness as a methodology, our study takes
this a step further by questioning the adequacy of existing models in explaining societal
attitudes towards complex and continually evolving technologies like AI.

6. Conclusions
In the realm of artificial intelligence (AI), it is intriguing to note that people predomi-
nantly regard the benefits to processes—such as greater innovation and productivity—as
outweighing what AI can offer to human outcomes, including enhanced decision-making
capabilities and potential. This inclination aligns with Reckwitz’s (2020) observations that
society is gradually moving from a mindset focused on rationalisation and standardisation
towards one that values the exceptional and unique. In this transformed landscape, technol-
ogy, including AI, plays a central role. The increasing prominence of quantifiable metrics,
including rankings and scores, bolsters this shift. These metrics, enabled by the continually
expanding capabilities of data processing in our digital era, serve to measure and define
the exceptional (Reckwitz 2020). Johannessen (2020) reminds us that the adoption of these
new technologies requires humanity to develop new skill sets, especially those that allow
for ethical reflection on the complexities introduced by such technological advancements.
This is not just an academic exercise; it is a societal imperative.
As our data demonstrate, trust and practical applications of AI are significant factors
shaping public opinion and engagement with the technology. A unanimous sentiment
emanating from the survey is the perceived ineffectiveness of governmental institutions in
tackling global crises such as climate change and COVID-19, often attributed to the vested
interests of politicians. Consequently, AI is increasingly viewed as a reliable and unbiased
tool for decision making at a high level, particularly for addressing complex global issues.
This account, then, does more than simply sum up the findings; it situates them within
broader scholarly and societal discussions about the evolving role of AI, pointing towards
the multifaceted implications of our collective trust in, and adoption of, this technology.
The role of governmental institutions in regulating the dissemination of information
has come to the forefront, especially at a time when the integrity of information is pivotal.
The findings of this research underscore that we are at a critical juncture where digital
platforms can easily amplify misinformation, thereby affecting public understanding and
fuelling polarisation. This situation calls for enhanced governance to set precedents con-
cerning what information should be shared and in what context. The public discourse
is presently characterised by polarisation, fragmenting society into opposing camps sus-
ceptible to manipulation and sudden shifts in opinion. The implications of this research
extend to scenarios where the unchecked development of superintelligence poses a po-
tential threat to humanity. In such a context, governmental action, often influenced by
the will of the voting public, becomes imperative to regulate and govern the trajectory
of artificial intelligence to ensure it aligns with the best interests of human society. The
Soc. Sci. 2023, 12, 502 20 of 24

fragmentation of public opinion and its susceptibility to manipulation serve as significant

barriers to effective governmental action. Such divisions render decision making not only
difficult but, in extreme cases, virtually unfeasible, thereby stymying the enactment of
policies and regulations essential for societal well-being. The findings from the focus
groups indicate that public intellectuals and renowned experts, such as Stephen Hawking,
exert a considerable influence on shifts in public opinion, thereby acting as pivotal agents
in shaping societal attitudes towards complex issues.
In this complex landscape, the need for leadership with foresight and deep under-
standing has never been more apparent. The findings pose an important question: can
artificial intelligence assume a leadership role? While AI might serve as an auxiliary tool
for informed decision making, the acceptance and adaptation of AI technologies among
policymakers and key decision-makers remain topics warranting further exploration.
This research carries inherent limitations that must be acknowledged for a compre-
hensive understanding of its findings and implications. Primarily, the respondents consist
of business school students or faculty members. Given their exposure to a contemporary
curriculum, their viewpoints on AI technology and its applications are likely more evolved
than those of the general population. Additionally, the survey was conducted in English,
thereby excluding non-English-speaking respondents who might offer culturally specific
insights. Such limitations also extend to the sample size, which was drawn from developed
nations with high levels of Internet penetration and general awareness.
As for future research directions, the current study lays the groundwork for expan-
sive inquiries into AI. It is crucial, however, to consider the cultural dimensions, which
have not been fully integrated into the current study. Future researchers might benefit
from employing a diverse sample encompassing multiple geographies, languages, and
educational backgrounds. Such an approach would yield a more nuanced understanding
of the topics explored in this study and could potentially illuminate how cultural beliefs
and backgrounds influence the perceptions and applications of AI.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement: Approval from the Ethics Committee of SBS Swiss Business
School has been received.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the
study prior to accessing the questionnaire anonymously online or before starting the focus groups.
Data Availability Statement: The data can be requested directly by the author.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

Appendix A
Questionnaire of the study.
(1) What is your age?
18–24
25–34
35–44
45–54
55–64
Above 64
(2) What is your gender?
Female
Male
Other (specify)
Soc. Sci. 2023, 12, 502 21 of 24

(3) What is your education?

High school (freshmen)
Trade/vocational/technical
Bachelors
Masters
Doctorate
(4) What is your annual income level
under 50,000 USD
50,000–100,000 USD
100,000–150,000 USD
above 150,000 USD
(5) AI can increase efficiency and accuracy in tasks (1 = I do not agree at all, 6 = I
fully agree)
(6) AI can offer convenience and save time. (1 = I do not agree at all, 6 = I fully agree)
(7) AI can improve decision-making processes. (1 = I do not agree at all, 6 = I fully agree)
(8) AI can help solve complex problems. (1 = I do not agree at all, 6 = I fully agree)
(9) AI can lead to cost savings. (1 = I do not agree at all, 6 = I fully agree)
(10) AI can create new job opportunities. (1 = I do not agree at all, 6 = I fully agree)
(11) Other benefits of AI I consider to be important for me:
(12) AI may lead to job displacement. (1 = I do not agree at all, 6 = I fully agree)
(13) AI may violate privacy concerns. (1 = I do not agree at all, 6 = I fully agree)
(14) AI may be used for malicious purposes. (1 = I do not agree at all, 6 = I fully agree)
(15) AI may cause errors and mistakes. (1 = I do not agree at all, 6 = I fully agree)
(16) AI may perpetuate bias and discrimination. (1 = I do not agree at all, 6 = I fully agree)
(17) AI may have unintended consequences. (1 = I do not agree at all, 6 = I fully agree)
(18) Other risks of AI I consider to be important for me:
(19) I trust AI to perform tasks accurately. (1 = I do not agree at all, 6 = I fully agree)
(20) I trust AI to make reliable decisions. (1 = I do not agree at all, 6 = I fully agree)
(21) I believe AI is predictable. (1 = I do not agree at all, 6 = I fully agree)
(22) I have confidence in AI’s ability to learn. (1 = I do not agree at all, 6 = I fully agree)
(23) I trust AI to keep my personal data secure. (1 = I do not agree at all, 6 = I fully agree)
(24) I trust AI to be used ethically. (1 = I do not agree at all, 6 = I fully agree)
(25) I trust an AI has less or no personal interests compared to humans. (1 = I do not agree
at all, 6 = I fully agree)
(26) I trust AI because:
(27) The government does not solve important issues like climate change. (1 = I do not
agree at all, 6 = I fully agree)
(28) AI can help address societal issues such as climate change and social inequality. (1 = I
do not agree at all, 6 = I fully agree)
(29) Governments cannot solve global issues. (1 = I do not agree at all, 6 = I fully agree)
(30) AI has the potential to solve global issues. (1 = I do not agree at all, 6 = I fully agree)
(31) Politicians and countries have too many vested interests. (1 = I do not agree at all,
6 = I fully agree)
(32) AI has the potential to make society more equitable. (1 = I do not agree at all, 6 = I
fully agree)
(33) AI can help create solutions to societal issues. (1 = I do not agree at all, 6 = I fully agree)
(34) I believe that AI can solve the following issue that humans failed to solve:
(35) I use AI-powered products and services frequently. (1 = I do not agree at all, 6 = I
fully agree)
(36) I have a basic understanding of what AI is and how it works. (1 = I do not agree at all,
6 = I fully agree)
(37) I have no experience with AI. (1 = I do not agree at all, 6 = I fully agree)
Soc. Sci. 2023, 12, 502 22 of 24

(38) I am comfortable using AI-powered products and services. (1 = I do not agree at all,
6 = I fully agree)
(39) I have encountered issues with AI-powered products and services in the past. (1 = I
do not agree at all, 6 = I fully agree)
(40) My cultural background influences my attitudes towards AI. (1 = I do not agree at all,
6 = I fully agree)
(41) Different cultures may have different perceptions of AI. (1 = I do not agree at all, 6 = I
fully agree)
(42) AI development should take cultural differences into account. (1 = I do not agree at
all, 6 = I fully agree)
(43) My cultural beliefs impact my level of trust in AI. (1 = I do not agree at all, 6 = I
fully agree)
(44) Cultural diversity can bring unique perspectives to the development and use of AI.
(1 = I do not agree at all, 6 = I fully agree)
(45) I believe AI is the future for human kind (1 = I do not agree at all, 6 = I fully agree)
(46) I believe AI is the end of human kind. (1 = I do not agree at all, 6 = I fully agree)
(47) How optimistic or pessimistic are you about the future of AI and its impact on society?

References
Acemoglu, Daron, and Pascual Restrepo. 2017. Robots and Jobs: Evidence from US Labor Markets. VoxEU. Available online:
https://voxeu.org/article/robots-and-jobs-evidence-us (accessed on 28 April 2023).
Ajzen, Icek. 2005. Attitudes, Personality, and Behavior, 2nd ed. New York: Open University Press.
Alshehri, Mohammed, Steve Drew, and Rayed Alghamdi. 2012. Analysis of citizens’ acceptance for e-government services: Applying
the UTAUT model. Paper presented at the IADIS International Conferences Theory and Practice in Modern Computing and
Internet Applications and Research, Lisbon, Portugal, July 17–23.
Arrow, Kenneth J., Kamran Bilir, and Alan Sorensen. 2017. The impact of information technology on the diffusion of new pharmaceuti-
cals. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 12: 1–39.
Asch, Solomon E. 1955. Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American 193: 31–35. [CrossRef]
Borges, Alex F. S., Fernando J. B. Laurindo, M. S. Mauro, R. F. Gonçalves, and C. A. Mattos. 2020. The strategic use of artificial
intelligence in the digital era: Systematic literature review and future research directions. International Journal of Information
Management 57: 102225.
Bossman, Jeremy. 2016. Top 9 Ethical Issues in Artificial Intelligence. World Economic Forum. Available online: https://www.weforum.
org/agenda/2016/10/top-10-ethical-issues-in-artificial-intelligence/ (accessed on 15 March 2023).
Bostrom, Nick. 2014. Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brandtzaeg, Petter B., and Asbjørn Følstad. 2017. Why people use chatbots. Paper presented at the Internet Science: 4th International
Conference, INSCI 2017, Thessaloniki, Greece, November 22–24.
Brooks, Amanda. 2019. The Benefits of AI: 6 Societal Advantages of Automation. Rasmussen University. Available online: https:
//www.rasmussen.edu/degrees/technology/blog/benefits-of-ai/ (accessed on 15 March 2023).
Brossard, Dominique. 2013. New Media Landscapes and the Science Information Consumer. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America 110: 14096–101. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Brynjolfsson, Erik, and Andrew McAfee. 2014. The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies.
New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Cho, Eunho, Heungsun Hwang, Marko Sarstedt, and Christian M. Ringle. 2020. Partial least squares structural equation modeling:
Current state, challenges, and future research directions. Journal of Marketing Analytics 8: 1–22.
Cialdini, Robert B. 1984. Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. New York: Harper Collins.
Circiumaru, Adrian. 2022. Futureproofing EU Law the Case of Algorithmic Discrimination. Oxford: Oxford University.
Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Collins, Harry, and Robert Evans. 2007. Rethinking Expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Creswell, John W., and J. David Creswell. 2017. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 5th ed.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Creswell, John W., and Timothy C. Guetterman. 2019. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, Evaluating. Boston: Pearson.
Darko, Amos, Albert P. C. Chan, Mubarak A. Adabre, David J. Edwards, M. Reza Hosseini, and Emmanuel E. Ameyaw. 2020. Artificial
intelligence in the AEC industry: Scientometric analysis and visualisation of research activities. Automation in Construction
112: 103081.
Davis, Fred D. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly
13: 319–40. [CrossRef]
Soc. Sci. 2023, 12, 502 23 of 24

Davis, Fred D., Richard P. Bagozzi, and Paul R. Warshaw. 1989. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two
theoretical models. Management Science 35: 982–1003. [CrossRef]
Denzin, Norman K., and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 2005. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Eurobarometer. 2017. Attitudes towards the Impact of Digitisation and Automation on Daily Life. Available online: https://europa.
eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2160 (accessed on 22 April 2023).
European Commission. 2019. Ethical Guidelines for Trustworthy AI. Brussels: European Commission.
European Commission & Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content & Technology. 2017. Attitudes towards the
Impact of Digitisation and Automation on Daily Life: Report. European Commission. Available online: https://digital-strategy.
ec.europa.eu/en/news/attitudes-towards-impact-digitisation-and-automation-daily-life (accessed on 22 April 2023).
Featherman, Mauricio S., and Paul A. Pavlou. 2003. Predicting E-Services Adoption: A Perceived Risk Facets Perspective. International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies 59: 451–74. [CrossRef]
Flick, Uwe. 2018. An Introduction to Qualitative Research, 6th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Fountaine, Tim, Brian McCarthy, and Tamim Saleh. 2019. Building the AI-Powered Organisation. Harvard Business Review 97: 62–73.
Frey, Carl B., and Michael A. Osborne. 2017. The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological
Forecasting and Social Change 114: 254–80. [CrossRef]
Gansser, Oliver A., and Christoph S. Reich. 2021. A new acceptance model for artificial intelligence with extensions to UTAUT2: An
empirical study in three segments of application. Technology in Society 65: 101535. [CrossRef]
Gerlich, Michael. 2023. The Power of Virtual Influencers: Impact on Consumer Behaviour and Attitudes in the Age of AI. Administrative
Sciences 13: 178. [CrossRef]
Gillespie, N., S. Lockey, and C. Curtis. 2021. Trust in Artificial Intelligence: A Five Country Study. Bisbane: The University of Queensland
and KPMG.
Greenbaum, T. L. 1998. The Handbook for Focus Group Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Guiso, Luigi, Samuele Papola, and Zingales Luigi. 2006. Does Culture Affect Economic Outcomes? Journal of Economic Perspectives
20: 23–48. [CrossRef]
Gursoy, Dogan, O. H. Chi, Lu Lu, and Robin Nunkoo. 2019. Consumers acceptance of artificially intelligent (AI) device use in service
delivery. International Journal of Information Management 49: 157–69. [CrossRef]
Hair, Joseph F., G. Tomas M. Hult, Christian M. Ringle, and Marko Sarstedt. 2016. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation
Modeling (PLS-SEM). London: Sage Publications.
Hale, Julie, Brian Householder, and Kathryn Greene. 2003. The theory of reasoned action. The Persuasion Handbook: Developments in
Theory and Practice 14: 259–86.
Hartwig, Benjamin. 2021. Benefits of Artificial Intelligence. Hackr.io. Available online: https://hackr.io/blog/benefits-ofartificial-
intelligence (accessed on 17 April 2023).
Hofstede, Geert. 2001. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviours, Institutions, and Organisations across Nations. London:
Sage Publications.
Huang, Ming-Hui, and Roland T. Rust. 2018. Artificial intelligence in service. Journal of Service Research 21: 155–72. [CrossRef]
Jaradat, Mohammed Riad M., and Mohammad S. Al Rababaa. 2013. Assessing Key Factor that Influence on the Acceptance of Mobile
Commerce Based on Modified UTAUT. International Journal of Business and Management 8: 102. [CrossRef]
Johannessen, Jon-Arild. 2020. Artificial Intelligence, Automation and the Future of Competence at Work, 1st ed. Oxfordshire: Routledge.
[CrossRef]
Kaplan, Andreas, and Michael Haenlein. 2019. Siri, Siri, in my hand: Who’s the fairest in the land? On the interpretations, illustrations,
and implications of artificial intelligence. Business Horizons 62: 15–25. [CrossRef]
Kaya, Feridun, Fatih Aydin, Astrid Schepman, Paul Rodway, Okan Yetişensoy, and Meva Demir Kaya. 2022. The Roles of Personality
Traits, AI Anxiety, and Demographic Factors in Attitudes toward Artificial Intelligence. International Journal of Human–Computer In-
teraction. [CrossRef]
Krueger, Richard A., and Mary Anne Casey. 2015. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, 5th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Kvale, Steinar, and Svend Brinkmann. 2009. Interviews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
Lai, Po-Ching. 2017. The Literature Review of Technology Adoption Models and Theories for the Novelty Technology. Journal of
Information Systems and Technology Management 14: 21–38. [CrossRef]
Lewicki, Roy J., Daniel J. McAllister, and Robert J. Bies. 1998. Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities. Academy of Management
Review 23: 438–58. [CrossRef]
Lichtenthaler, Ulrich. 2020. Extremes of acceptance: Employee attitudes toward artificial intelligence. The Journal of Business Strategy
41: 39–45. [CrossRef]
Longhurst, Robyn. 2016. Semi-Structured Interviews and Focus Groups. In Key Methods in Geography, 3rd ed. Edited by Nick Clifford,
Meghan Cope, Thomas Gillespie and Sarah French. London: Sage Publications, pp. 143–56.
Luan, Hao, Peter Geczy, Hui Lai, Janette Gobert, Stephen J. H. Yang, Hiroaki Ogata, Jeremy Baltes, Rafael Guerra, Peng Li, and
Chin-Chung Tsai. 2020. Challenges and future directions of big data and artificial intelligence in education. Frontiers in Psychology
11: 580820. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Soc. Sci. 2023, 12, 502 24 of 24

Man Hong, Lai, Noor Chenawi, Wafi Zulkiffli, and Nur Hamsani. 2018. The Chronology of Perceived Risk. Paper presented at the 6th
International Seminar on Entrepreneurship and Business (ISEB 2018), Kota Bharu, Kelantan, November 24.
Maxwell, Joseph A. 2013. Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Mayer, Roger C., James H. Davis, and F. David Schoorman. 1995. An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. The Academy of
Management Review 20: 709–34. [CrossRef]
McCombs, Maxwell E., and Donald L. Shaw. 1972. The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. Public Opinion Quarterly 36: 176–87.
[CrossRef]
McMillan, James H., and Sally Schumacher. 2014. Research in Education: Evidence-Based Inquiry. Boston: Pearson.
Meyers, Lawrence S., Glenn Gamst, and Anthony J. Guarino. 2013. Applied Multivariate Research: Design and Interpretation. Los Angeles:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Momani, Alaa M., and Mohammad M. Jamous. 2017. The Evolution of Technology Acceptance Theories. International Journal of
Contemporary Computer Research 1: 51–58.
Morgan, David. L. 1996. Focus Groups. Annual Review of Sociology 22: 129–52. [CrossRef]
Neudert, Lisa-Maria, Ansgar Knuutila, and Philip N. Howard. 2020. Global Attitudes Towards AI, Machine Learning & Automated Decision
Making. Working paper 2020.10. Oxford: University of Oxford.
OECD. 2019. Artificial Intelligence in Society. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development Publishing. Available
online: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/eedfee77-en/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/eedfee77-en (accessed on
12 April 2023).
Park, Jonghyuk, and Sang Eun Woo. 2022. Who likes artificial intelligence? Personality predictors of attitudes toward artificial
intelligence. The Journal of Psychology 156: 68–94. [CrossRef]
Pillai, Rajnandini, and Brijesh Sivathanu. 2020. Adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) for talent acquisition in IT/ITeS organizations.
Benchmarking: An International Journal 27: 2599–629. [CrossRef]
Reckwitz, A. 2020. The Society of Singularities. In Futures of the Study of Culture: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Global Challenges. Edited
by D. Bachmann-Medick, J. Kugele and A. Nünning. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 141–54. [CrossRef]
Reinhart, Riley. J. 2018. Most Americans Already Using Artificial Intelligence Products. Gallup. Available online: https://news.gallup.
com/poll/228497/americans-already-using-artificial-intelligence-products.aspx (accessed on 12 April 2023).
Restuccia, Diego, and Richard Rogerson. 2017. The Causes and Costs of Misallocation. Journal of Economic Perspectives 31: 151–74.
[CrossRef]
Rogers, Everett M. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed. Hong Kong: Free Press.
Schepman, Astrid, and Paul Rodway. 2022. The General Attitudes towards Artificial Intelligence Scale (GAAIS): Confirmatory
validation and associations with personality, corporate distrust, and general trust. International Journal of Human–Computer
Interaction 39: 2724–41. [CrossRef]
Sivathanu, Brijesh, and Rajnandini Pillai. 2019. Leveraging Technology for Talent Management: Foresight for Organizational
Performance. International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development 11: 16–30. [CrossRef]
Tai, Michael C. T. 2020. The impact of artificial intelligence on human society and bioethics. Tzu Chi Medical Journal 32: 339–43.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Tubadji, Annie, and Peter Nijkamp. 2016. Six degrees of cultural diversity and R&D output efficiency: Cultural percolation of new
ideas. Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences 9: 247–64.
Vance, Anthony, Christophe Elie-Dit-Cosaque, and Detmar W. Straub. 2008. Examining trust in information technology artifacts: The
effects of system quality and culture. Journal of Management Information Systems 24: 73–100. [CrossRef]
Venkatesh, Viswanath, and Fred D. Davis. 2000. A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal
Field Studies. Management Science 46: 186–204. [CrossRef]
Venkatesh, Viswanath, Michael G. Morris, Gordon B. Davis, and Fred D. Davis. 2003. User Acceptance of Information Technology:
Toward a Unified View. Management Information Systems Quarterly 2003: 425–78. [CrossRef]
Venkatesh, Viswanath, James Y. L. Thong, and Xin Xu. 2012. Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Technology: Extending the
Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. MIS Quarterly 36: 157–78. [CrossRef]
Verdier, Thierry, and Yves Zenou. 2017. The role of social networks in cultural assimilation. Journal of Urban Economics 97: 15–39.
[CrossRef]
Williams, Michael D., Nripendra P. Rana, and Yogesh K. Dwivedi. 2015. The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology
(UTAUT): A literature review. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 28: 443–88. [CrossRef]
Zhang, Baobao, and Allan Dafoe. 2019. Artificial Intelligence: American Attitudes and Trends; Oxford: Center for the Governance of AI,
Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford. [CrossRef]
Zollmann, Julia. 2017. Corporate media coverage of the role of corporations in global health. Critical Sociology 43: 709–28.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

View publication stats