MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402810580 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1479981

Editorial: Coping with an AI-saturated world: psychological dynamics and outcomes of AI-mediated communication

2024· editorial· en· W4402810580 on OpenAlexaff
Anfan Chen, Richard Evans, Runxi Zeng

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2024
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEthics and Social Impacts of AI
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNational Office for Philosophy and Social Sciences
KeywordsPsychologyDynamics (music)Coping (psychology)Social psychologyClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

background music on social media engagement, focusing on the roles of event relevance, lyric resonance, and the origins of AI-generated singers, along with the mediating effects of audience interpretation and emotional resonance. To wit, this study provided important practical insights into how AI-modified music improves users' cognitive and emotional engagement, fostering a stronger connection between content creators and their audiences.As AI becomes increasingly embedded in our communication practices, individuals must develop new coping and adaptation strategies to navigate these environments. This special issue also explored the various ways people adjust to the presence of AI in their lives, including the strategies they use to manage the complexities and challenges associated with AI-MC. Grassini (2023) developed and validated the AI Attitude Scale (AIAS-4), a measure designed to evaluate public perceptions of AI. The authors highlighted the importance of digital literacy and critical thinking skills in coping with AI-MC. As users improve their understanding of the capabilities and limitations of AI, they become better equipped to navigate such systems and mitigate potential negative effects.Additionally, the integration of AI in smart speakers, which use voice interaction to provide services, poses potential risks to user privacy due to the continuous collection of voice data. Feng (2024) explored the factors influencing privacy boundary management among smart speaker users. The author identified that personalization positively influences privacy disclosure and boundary linkage but negatively affects privacy control. Privacy concerns have a negative impact on privacy disclosure and boundary linkage, while positively influencing privacy control.It showed that users with higher privacy concerns are less likely to disclose information and more likely to adopt strict privacy controls. Higher levels of privacy literacy are associated with reduced privacy disclosure and boundary linkage, and increased privacy control. These findings have significant implications for the design and regulation of smart speakers and similar AI-driven devices.The rise of chatbots and similar tools has transformed the way humans interact with information technology. Lee and Hahn (2024) investigated a crucial aspect of human-chatbot interaction: the perception of mind in chatbots. The study found that users who implicitly perceive chatbots as having human-like minds are more likely to perceive the chatbots' messages to be effective, particularly when the chatbots provide emotional support. Users who explicitly attribute humanlike minds to chatbots also perceive the chatbots' messages as more effective, regardless of whether the support received is informational or emotional. These findings have significant implications for the design of social support chatbots.Human-machine interactions are characterized by a complex interplay of psychological factors, including perception, emotion, and cognition. This issue investigated the psychological dynamics of these interactions, examining how individuals perceive and respond to AI systems.For example, Liu, Wang, and Yu (2023) investigated how the labeling of Artificial Intelligence Generated Content (AIGC) affects users' perceptions of automated news using electroencephalography (EEG) to measure brain activity. The study found that AIGC labeling significantly reduces the perceived trustworthiness of both descriptive (fact-based) and evaluative (opinion-based) news. This suggests that transparency cues, like AIGC labeling, nudge users to critically evaluate the quality of the information presented. EEG results indicated higher delta, theta, alpha, and beta Power Spectral Densities (PSDs) when AIGC labeling was present, signifying increased cognitive load and attention. These findings demonstrate the importance of transparency in AI-generated news, while the labeling of AIGC is found to not only help in maintaining journalistic integrity but also enhances users' cognitive engagement, prompting them to process information more critically.In addition, one of the key findings from this special issue is the importance of subjective perceptions in shaping user attitudes toward AI (Tao, Gao & Yuan, 2023;Liu, Wang & Yu, 2023;Feng, 2024;Inju Lee & Sowon Hahn, 2024). The research shows that users are more likely to accept and trust AI systems that exhibit a degree of autonomy and intelligence. However, there is also evidence of the "uncanny valley" effect, where highly realistic AI can evoke discomfort and unease. This issue explored these psychological dynamics, providing insights into how designers can create AI systems that are both effective and user-friendly. At the same time, the issue highlighted the potential risks and challenges associated with AI-MC. For example, concerns were expressed about the privacy and security of user data, as well as the potential for AI systems to perpetuate biases and stereotypes. In addition, the issue examined the broader societal implications of AI, including the impact on employment, social inequality, and the digital divide.This special issue offers a comprehensive exploration of the psychological dynamics and outcomes of AI-mediated communication. The studies presented provide important insights into how AI systems are reshaping human interaction, with significant implications for individuals, organizations, and society at large. As we navigate the complexities of an AI-driven world, developing a nuanced understanding of these systems and their impact on our lives is essential for our daily life.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.396 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychologySame topicEthics and Social Impacts of AIFrench-language works237,207