自然面孔仅仅被贴上人造面孔的标签吗?

IF 3.1 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Collabra-Psychology Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1525/collabra.73066
B. Liefooghe, Manuel Oliveira, L. M. Leisten, Eline Hoogers, H. Aarts, R. Hortensius
{"title":"自然面孔仅仅被贴上人造面孔的标签吗?","authors":"B. Liefooghe, Manuel Oliveira, L. M. Leisten, Eline Hoogers, H. Aarts, R. Hortensius","doi":"10.1525/collabra.73066","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Artificial intelligence increasingly plays a crucial role in daily life. At the same time, artificial intelligence is often met with reluctance and distrust. Previous research demonstrated that faces that are visibly artificial are considered to be less trustworthy and remembered less accurately compared to natural faces. Current technology, however, enables the generation of artificial faces that are indistinguishable from natural faces. In five experiments (total N = 867), we tested whether natural faces that are merely labelled to be artificial are also trusted less. A meta-analysis of all five experiments suggested that natural faces merely labeled as being artificial were judged to be less trustworthy. This bias did not depend on the degree of trustworthiness and attractiveness of the faces (Experiments 1-3). It was not modulated by changing raters’ attitude towards artificial intelligence (Experiments 2-3) or by information communicated by the faces (Experiment 4). We also did not observe differences in recall performance between faces labelled as artificial or natural (Experiment 3). When participants only judged one type of face (i.e., either labelled as artificial or natural), the difference in trustworthiness judgments was eliminated (Experiment 5) suggesting that the contrast between the natural and artificial categories in the same task promoted the labelling effect. We conclude that faces that are merely labelled to be artificial are trusted less in situations that also include faces labelled to be real. We propose that understanding and changing social evaluations towards artificial intelligence goes beyond eliminating physical differences between artificial and natural entities.","PeriodicalId":45791,"journal":{"name":"Collabra-Psychology","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are Natural Faces Merely Labelled as Artificial Trusted Less?\",\"authors\":\"B. Liefooghe, Manuel Oliveira, L. M. Leisten, Eline Hoogers, H. Aarts, R. Hortensius\",\"doi\":\"10.1525/collabra.73066\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Artificial intelligence increasingly plays a crucial role in daily life. At the same time, artificial intelligence is often met with reluctance and distrust. Previous research demonstrated that faces that are visibly artificial are considered to be less trustworthy and remembered less accurately compared to natural faces. Current technology, however, enables the generation of artificial faces that are indistinguishable from natural faces. In five experiments (total N = 867), we tested whether natural faces that are merely labelled to be artificial are also trusted less. A meta-analysis of all five experiments suggested that natural faces merely labeled as being artificial were judged to be less trustworthy. This bias did not depend on the degree of trustworthiness and attractiveness of the faces (Experiments 1-3). It was not modulated by changing raters’ attitude towards artificial intelligence (Experiments 2-3) or by information communicated by the faces (Experiment 4). We also did not observe differences in recall performance between faces labelled as artificial or natural (Experiment 3). When participants only judged one type of face (i.e., either labelled as artificial or natural), the difference in trustworthiness judgments was eliminated (Experiment 5) suggesting that the contrast between the natural and artificial categories in the same task promoted the labelling effect. We conclude that faces that are merely labelled to be artificial are trusted less in situations that also include faces labelled to be real. We propose that understanding and changing social evaluations towards artificial intelligence goes beyond eliminating physical differences between artificial and natural entities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45791,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Collabra-Psychology\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Collabra-Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.73066\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Collabra-Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.73066","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人工智能在日常生活中扮演着越来越重要的角色。与此同时,人工智能往往遭遇不情愿和不信任。先前的研究表明,与自然面孔相比,明显人造的面孔被认为不那么可信,记忆也不那么准确。然而,目前的技术能够生成与自然面孔无法区分的人造面孔。在五个实验中(总共N = 867),我们测试了仅仅被标记为人造的自然面孔是否也更不可信。对所有五个实验的荟萃分析表明,仅仅被贴上人造标签的自然面孔被认为不太值得信赖。这种偏见并不取决于面孔的可信度和吸引力程度(实验1-3)。它不受评分者对人工智能的态度改变(实验2-3)或面部传达的信息(实验4)的影响。我们也没有观察到标记为人工或自然的面部之间的回忆表现差异(实验3)。当参与者只判断一种类型的面部(即标记为人工或自然)时,可信度判断的差异被消除(实验5),这表明同一任务中自然类别和人工类别的对比促进了标签效应。我们得出的结论是,仅仅被贴上人造标签的面孔在包括被贴上真实标签的面孔的情况下更不可信。我们建议,理解和改变对人工智能的社会评价不仅仅是消除人工实体和自然实体之间的物理差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Are Natural Faces Merely Labelled as Artificial Trusted Less?
Artificial intelligence increasingly plays a crucial role in daily life. At the same time, artificial intelligence is often met with reluctance and distrust. Previous research demonstrated that faces that are visibly artificial are considered to be less trustworthy and remembered less accurately compared to natural faces. Current technology, however, enables the generation of artificial faces that are indistinguishable from natural faces. In five experiments (total N = 867), we tested whether natural faces that are merely labelled to be artificial are also trusted less. A meta-analysis of all five experiments suggested that natural faces merely labeled as being artificial were judged to be less trustworthy. This bias did not depend on the degree of trustworthiness and attractiveness of the faces (Experiments 1-3). It was not modulated by changing raters’ attitude towards artificial intelligence (Experiments 2-3) or by information communicated by the faces (Experiment 4). We also did not observe differences in recall performance between faces labelled as artificial or natural (Experiment 3). When participants only judged one type of face (i.e., either labelled as artificial or natural), the difference in trustworthiness judgments was eliminated (Experiment 5) suggesting that the contrast between the natural and artificial categories in the same task promoted the labelling effect. We conclude that faces that are merely labelled to be artificial are trusted less in situations that also include faces labelled to be real. We propose that understanding and changing social evaluations towards artificial intelligence goes beyond eliminating physical differences between artificial and natural entities.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Collabra-Psychology
Collabra-Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.00%
发文量
47
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Collabra: Psychology has 7 sections representing the broad field of psychology, and a highlighted focus area of “Methodology and Research Practice.” Are: Cognitive Psychology Social Psychology Personality Psychology Clinical Psychology Developmental Psychology Organizational Behavior Methodology and Research Practice.
期刊最新文献
Characterizing Human Habits in the Lab. Breaking Ban: Belgium’s Ineffective Gambling Law Regulation of Video Game Loot Boxes Revisiting the Differential Centrality of Experiential and Material Purchases to the Self: Replication and Extension of Carter and Gilovich (2012) Cyberloafing: Investigating the Importance and Implications of New and Known Predictors Psychometric Properties of the Chilean Version of the Oviedo Grit Scale
×
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