Institutional trustworthiness on public attitudes toward facial recognition technology: Evidence from U.S. policing

IF 7.8 1区 管理学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Government Information Quarterly Pub Date : 2024-06-07 DOI:10.1016/j.giq.2024.101941
Robin Guohuibin Li
{"title":"Institutional trustworthiness on public attitudes toward facial recognition technology: Evidence from U.S. policing","authors":"Robin Guohuibin Li","doi":"10.1016/j.giq.2024.101941","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This study examines the relationship between institutional trustworthiness and public acceptability of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based Facial Recognition Technology (FRT) on its uses in five U.S. policing scenarios - public protests, large events, public streets, and two artificial scenarios representing public partial and high FRT acceptability. Drawing on a 2021 U.S. nationally representative survey (<em>n</em> = 4679), logit models demonstrate that two institutional trustworthiness dimensions - integrity and ability - affect public FRT acceptability. The effect of integrity is consistent across the five scenarios, and the Average Marginal Effects (AMEs) indicate that the effect is largest when the public assesses FRT acceptability in public protests - that presents the greatest privacy concern to citizens. This study contributes to the emerging literature on AI technology adoption in public entities through the institutional trustworthiness lens. It expands the application of the institutional trustworthiness framework into the local context of U.S. police adopting FRT and highlights contextual implications for public organizations adopting intrusive technologies. This study challenges a pervasive assumption of trading privacy for security in adopting FRT-like intrusive AI technologies in public services and recommends the ethical use of AI-based FRT in its operation, implementation, and development for public institutions, policymakers, and the AI industry.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48258,"journal":{"name":"Government Information Quarterly","volume":"41 3","pages":"Article 101941"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Government Information Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740624X24000339","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between institutional trustworthiness and public acceptability of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based Facial Recognition Technology (FRT) on its uses in five U.S. policing scenarios - public protests, large events, public streets, and two artificial scenarios representing public partial and high FRT acceptability. Drawing on a 2021 U.S. nationally representative survey (n = 4679), logit models demonstrate that two institutional trustworthiness dimensions - integrity and ability - affect public FRT acceptability. The effect of integrity is consistent across the five scenarios, and the Average Marginal Effects (AMEs) indicate that the effect is largest when the public assesses FRT acceptability in public protests - that presents the greatest privacy concern to citizens. This study contributes to the emerging literature on AI technology adoption in public entities through the institutional trustworthiness lens. It expands the application of the institutional trustworthiness framework into the local context of U.S. police adopting FRT and highlights contextual implications for public organizations adopting intrusive technologies. This study challenges a pervasive assumption of trading privacy for security in adopting FRT-like intrusive AI technologies in public services and recommends the ethical use of AI-based FRT in its operation, implementation, and development for public institutions, policymakers, and the AI industry.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
机构可信度对公众对面部识别技术态度的影响:来自美国警务的证据
本研究探讨了机构可信度与公众对基于人工智能(AI)的人脸识别技术(FRT)在五种美国警务场景(公共抗议、大型活动、公共街道)中使用的可接受性之间的关系,以及代表公众部分和高FRT可接受性的两种人工场景。利用 2021 年美国全国代表性调查(n = 4679),Logit 模型证明了机构信任度的两个维度--诚信和能力--会影响公众对 FRT 的接受度。诚信的影响在五种情况下都是一致的,平均边际效应(AMEs)表明,当公众在公开抗议中评估 FRT 可接受性时,诚信的影响最大,这也是公民最关心的隐私问题。本研究通过机构信任度视角,为有关公共实体采用人工智能技术的新兴文献做出了贡献。它将机构可信度框架的应用扩展到美国警方采用 FRT 的本地背景中,并强调了公共组织采用侵入性技术的背景影响。本研究挑战了在公共服务中采用类似 FRT 的侵入式人工智能技术时以隐私换安全的普遍假设,并建议公共机构、政策制定者和人工智能行业在运行、实施和开发过程中合乎道德地使用基于人工智能的 FRT。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Government Information Quarterly
Government Information Quarterly INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
15.70
自引率
16.70%
发文量
106
期刊介绍: Government Information Quarterly (GIQ) delves into the convergence of policy, information technology, government, and the public. It explores the impact of policies on government information flows, the role of technology in innovative government services, and the dynamic between citizens and governing bodies in the digital age. GIQ serves as a premier journal, disseminating high-quality research and insights that bridge the realms of policy, information technology, government, and public engagement.
期刊最新文献
A more secure framework for open government data sharing based on federated learning Does trust in government moderate the perception towards deepfakes? Comparative perspectives from Asia on the risks of AI and misinformation for democracy Open government data and self-efficacy: The empirical evidence of micro foundation via survey experiments Transforming towards inclusion-by-design: Information system design principles shaping data-driven financial inclusiveness Bridging the gap: Towards an expanded toolkit for AI-driven decision-making in the public sector
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1