skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


Title: American public opinion on artificial intelligence in healthcare
Billions of dollars are being invested into developing medical artificial intelligence (AI) systems and yet public opinion of AI in the medical field seems to be mixed. Although high expectations for the future of medical AI do exist in the American public, anxiety and uncertainty about what it can do and how it works is widespread. Continuing evaluation of public opinion on AI in healthcare is necessary to ensure alignment between patient attitudes and the technologies adopted. We conducted a representative-sample survey (total N = 203) to measure the trust of the American public towards medical AI. Primarily, we contrasted preferences for AI and human professionals to be medical decision-makers. Additionally, we measured expectations for the impact and use of medical AI in the future. We present four noteworthy results: (1) The general public strongly prefers human medical professionals make medical decisions, while at the same time believing they are more likely to make culturally biased decisions than AI. (2) The general public is more comfortable with a human reading their medical records than an AI, both now and “100 years from now.” (3) The general public is nearly evenly split between those who would trust their own doctor to use AI and those who would not. (4) Respondents expect AI will improve medical treatment but more so in the distant future than immediately.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1927227
PAR ID:
10478014
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ;
Editor(s):
Mahmoud, Ali B.
Publisher / Repository:
Public Library of Science
Date Published:
Journal Name:
PLOS ONE
Volume:
18
Issue:
11
ISSN:
1932-6203
Page Range / eLocation ID:
e0294028
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; ; ; ; (, Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making)
    Automated Driving Systems (ADS), like many other systems people use today, depend on successful Artificial Intelligence (AI) for safe roadway operations. In ADS, an essential function completed by AI is the computer vision techniques for detecting roadway signs by vehicles. The AI, though, is not always reliable and sometimes requires the human’s intelligence to complete a task. For the human to collaborate with the AI, it is critical to understand the human’s perception of AI. In the present study, we investigated how human drivers perceive the AI’s capabilities in a driving context where a stop sign is compromised and how knowledge, experience, and trust related to AI play a role. We found that participants with more knowledge of AI tended to trust AI more, and those who reported more experience with AI had a greater understanding of AI. Participants correctly deduced that a maliciously manipulated stop sign would be more difficult for AI to identify. Nevertheless, participants still overestimated the AI’s ability to recognize the malicious stop sign. Our findings suggest that the public do not yet have a sufficiently accurate understanding of specific AI systems, which leads them to over-trust the AI in certain conditions. 
    more » « less
  2. ; ; ; ; ; ; (, Agronomy Journal)
    Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI) represents technologies with human‐like cognitive abilities to learn, perform, and make decisions. AI in precision agriculture (PA) enables farmers and farm managers to deploy highly targeted and precise farming practices based on site‐specific agroclimatic field measurements. The foundational and applied development of AI has matured considerably over the last 30 years. The time is now right to engage seriously with the ethics and responsible practice of AI for the well‐being of farmers and farm managers. In this paper, we identify and discuss both challenges and opportunities for improving farmers’ trust in those providing AI solutions for PA. We highlight that farmers’ trust can be moderated by how the benefits and risks of AI are perceived, shared, and distributed. We propose four recommendations for improving farmers’ trust. First, AI developers should improve model transparency and explainability. Second, clear responsibility and accountability should be assigned to AI decisions. Third, concerns about the fairness of AI need to be overcome to improve human‐machine partnerships in agriculture. Finally, regulation and voluntary compliance of data ownership, privacy, and security are needed, if AI systems are to become accepted and used by farmers. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; (, Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence)
    The increased integration of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in human workflows has resulted in a new paradigm of AI-assisted decision making,in which an AI model provides decision recommendations while humans make the final decisions. To best support humans in decision making, it is critical to obtain a quantitative understanding of how humans interact with and rely on AI. Previous studies often model humans' reliance on AI as an analytical process, i.e., reliance decisions are made based on cost-benefit analysis. However, theoretical models in psychology suggest that the reliance decisions can often be driven by emotions like humans' trust in AI models. In this paper, we propose a hidden Markov model to capture the affective process underlying the human-AI interaction in AI-assisted decision making, by characterizing how decision makers adjust their trust in AI over time and make reliance decisions based on their trust. Evaluations on real human behavior data collected from human-subject experiments show that the proposed model outperforms various baselines in accurately predicting humans' reliance behavior in AI-assisted decision making. Based on the proposed model, we further provide insights into how humans' trust and reliance dynamics in AI-assisted decision making is influenced by contextual factors like decision stakes and their interaction experiences. 
    more » « less
  4. ; (, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes)
    As generative artificial intelligence (AI) has found its way into various work tasks, questions about whether its usage should be disclosed and the consequences of such disclosure have taken center stage in public and academic discourse on digital transparency. This article addresses this debate by asking: Does disclosing the usage of AI compromise trust in the user? We examine the impact of AI disclosure on trust across diverse tasks—from communications via analytics to artistry—and across individual actors such as supervisors, subordinates, professors, analysts, and creatives, as well as across organizational actors such as investment funds. Thirteen experiments consistently demonstrate that actors who disclose their AI usage are trusted less than those who do not. Drawing on micro-institutional theory, we argue that this reduction in trust can be explained by reduced perceptions of legitimacy, as shown across various experimental designs (Studies 6–8). Moreover, we demonstrate that this negative effect holds across different disclosure framings, above and beyond algorithm aversion, regardless of whether AI involvement is known, and regardless of whether disclosure is voluntary or mandatory, though it is comparatively weaker than the effect of third-party exposure (Studies 9–13). A within-paper meta-analysis suggests this trust penalty is attenuated but not eliminated among evaluators with favorable technology attitudes and perceptions of high AI accuracy. This article contributes to research on trust, AI, transparency, and legitimacy by showing that AI disclosure can harm social perceptions, emphasizing that transparency is not straightforwardly beneficial, and highlighting legitimacy’s central role in trust formation. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; et al (, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction)
    Recent developments in AI have provided assisting tools to support pathologists’ diagnoses. However, it remains challenging to incorporate such tools into pathologists’ practice; one main concern is AI’s insufficient workflow integration with medical decisions. We observed pathologists’ examination and discovered that the main hindering factor to integrate AI is its incompatibility with pathologists’ workflow. To bridge the gap between pathologists and AI, we developed a human-AI collaborative diagnosis tool — xPath — that shares a similar examination process to that of pathologists, which can improve AI’s integration into their routine examination. The viability of xPath  is confirmed by a technical evaluation and work sessions with twelve medical professionals in pathology. This work identifies and addresses the challenge of incorporating AI models into pathology, which can offer first-hand knowledge about how HCI researchers can work with medical professionals side-by-side to bring technological advances to medical tasks towards practical applications. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email