ArticlePloS one2021
Conservatism predicts aversion to consequential Artificial Intelligence.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of AI-Assisted Diagnosis on American Patients' Trust in and Intention to Seek Help From Health Care Professionals: Randomized, Web-Based Survey Experiment.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Trial
- Public perspectives on artificial intelligence in healthcare in the USA: a cross-sectional survey.BMJ digital health & AI · 2026Article
- AI literacy and innovative work behavior among Chinese university teachers: indirect associations through AI-TPACK and moderation by organizational inertia.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Patient Consent and The Right to Notice and Explanation of AI Systems Used in Health Care.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2025Article
- Privacy, bias and the clinical use of facial recognition technology: A survey of genetics professionals.American journal of medical genetics. Part C, Seminars in medical genetics · 2023Article
- Exploring the artificial intelligence "Trust paradox": Evidence from a survey experiment in the United States.PloS one · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to revolutionize society by automating tasks as diverse as driving cars, diagnosing diseases, and providing legal advice. The degree to which AI can improve outcomes in these and other domains depends on how comfortable people are trusting AI for these tasks, which in turn depends on lay perceptions of AI. The present research examines how these critical lay perceptions may vary as a function of conservatism. Using five survey experiments, we find that political conservatism is associated with low comfort with and trust in AI-i.e., with AI aversion. This relationship between conservatism and AI aversion is explained by the link between conservatism and risk perception; more conservative individuals perceive AI as being riskier and are therefore more averse to its adoption. Finally, we test whether a moral reframing intervention can reduce AI aversion among conservatives.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.