Identity Threats as a Reason for Resistance to Artificial Intelligence: Survey Study With Medical Students and Professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Information systems based on artificial intelligence (AI) have increasingly spurred controversies among medical professionals as they start to outperform medical experts in tasks that previously required complex human reasoning. Prior research in other contexts has shown that such a technological disruption can result in professional identity threats and provoke negative attitudes and resistance to using technology. However, little is known about how AI systems evoke professional identity threats in medical professionals and under which conditions they actually provoke negative attitudes and resistance. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to investigate how medical professionals' resistance to AI can be understood because of professional identity threats and temporal perceptions of AI systems. It examines the following two dimensions of medical professional identity threat: threats to physicians' expert status (professional recognition) and threats to physicians' role as an autonomous care provider (professional capabilities). This paper assesses whether these professional identity threats predict resistance to AI systems and change in importance under the conditions of varying professional experience and varying perceived temporal relevance of AI systems. METHODS: We conducted 2 web-based surveys with 164 medical students and 42 experienced physicians across different specialties. The participants were provided with a vignette of a general medical AI system. We measured the experienced identity threats, resistance attitudes, and perceived temporal distance of AI. In a subsample, we collected additional data on the perceived identity enhancement to gain a better understanding of how the participants perceived the upcoming technological change as beyond a mere threat. Qualitative data were coded in a content analysis. Quantitative data were analyzed in regression analyses. RESULTS: Both threats to professional recognition and threats to professional capabilities contributed to perceived self-threat and resistance to AI. Self-threat was negatively associated with resistance. Threats to professional capabilities directly affected resistance to AI, whereas the effect of threats to professional recognition was fully mediated through self-threat. Medical students experienced stronger identity threats and resistance to AI than medical professionals. The temporal distance of AI changed the importance of professional identity threats. If AI systems were perceived as relevant only in the distant future, the effect of threats to professional capabilities was weaker, whereas the effect of threats to professional recognition was stronger. The effect of threats remained robust after including perceived identity enhancement. The results show that the distinct dimensions of medical professional identity are affected by the upcoming technological change through AI. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that AI systems can be perceived as a threat to medical professional identity. Both threats to professional recognition and threats to professional capabilities contribute to resistance attitudes toward AI and need to be considered in the implementation of AI systems in clinical practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".