Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37091958›Full record

ReviewMethodsX2023

An analytical framework for studying attitude towards emotional AI: The three-pronged approach.

Manh-Tung Ho, Peter Mantello, Manh-Toan Ho

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in MethodsX, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Manh-Tung HoRitsumeikan Asia Pacific University, Beppu, Oita, 874-8577, Japan.
Peter MantelloRitsumeikan Asia Pacific University, Beppu, Oita, 874-8577, Japan.
Manh-Toan HoCentre for Interdisciplinary Social Research, Ha Dong, Hanoi, 100803, Vietnam.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Emotional artificial intelligence (AI) is a narrow, weak form of an AI system that reads, classifies, and interacts with human emotions. This form of smart technology has become an integral layer of our digital and physical infrastructures and will radically transform how we live, learn, and work. Not only will emotional AI provide numerous benefits (i.e., increased attention and awareness, optimized productivity, stress management, etc.), but in sensing and interacting with our intimate emotions, it seeks to surreptitiously modify human behaviors. This study proposes to bring together the Technological Acceptance Model (TAM) and the Moral Foundation Theory to study determinants of emotional AI's acceptance under the analytical framework of the Three-pronged Approach (Contexts, Variables, and Statistical models). We argue that to quantitatively study the acceptance of new technologies, it is necessary to leverage two intuitions. The first is the degree of acceptance increases with how users of smart technology perceive its utilities and ease of use (formalized in the TAM). The second is the degree of acceptance decreases with the user's perception of threat or affirmation posed by the technology in relation to social norms and values (formalized in the Moral Foundation Theory). This study begins by mapping the ecology of current emotional AI use in various contexts such as workplace, education, healthcare, personal assistance, etc. It then provides a brief review and critique of current applications of the TAM and the Moral Foundation Theory in studying how humans judge smart technologies. Finally, we propose the Three-pronged Analytical Framework, offering recommendations on how future studies of technological acceptance could be conducted from the questionnaire design to building statistical models.

Indexed as

Emotional AIMoral foundation TheorySmart technologiesSurvey-based quantiative studies of emotional AI's acceptance and adoption behaviorsTechnological Acceptance ModelThree-pronged approach

Identifiers

PMID37091958
PMCPMC10113835

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.