Another Scapegoat? Support for Populism Triggers Fear of Artificial Intelligence

• In Event: Citizen's Perceptions of AI

Abstract

In the rapidly evolving landscape of technological advancements, artificial intelligence (AI) seems to resemble a paradigm-shifting force with the potential to reshape societies and economies (Makridakis, 2017). AI is considered to be a technological breakthrough with the potential to revolutionize industries and improve people's lives. However, there are also concerns related to how AI could negatively impact certain groups or sectors of society, being often linked to growing inequality, job scarcity, and privacy protection. In the context of current uncertainties, people may amplify their fears and look for alternative explanations or scapegoats for their problems. As such, the recent rise of AI extorts a polarizing force on public opinion: while parts of society praise the achievements and acknowledge the positive transformative prospect of artificial intelligence, others fear the perceived harmful consequences of these transformations.
Such concerns arise during times of significant political turbulence for European democracies, as they grapple with the looming specter of populist forces winning significant numbers of votes in local, national and European elections. Populism is a political narrative that presents politics to be a struggle between the many but powerless ‘People’ against the few but powerful ‘elites’ (Hawkins & Kaltwasser, 2017; Stoica, 2021). Recent academic research has pointed to the fact that the emergence of AI might create an ideal setting for populist politicians, who could fit ‘AI-induced’ job losses in the populist logic: the ‘People’ are threatened with losing their jobs because of the ‘elite’ that created this software, e.g. software developers, venture capitalists etc. (Levy, 2018).
Unfortunately, there is little empirical evidence that measures the degree to which public support for the populist logic truly bolsters fear of AI. Academic literature is even more scarce when it comes to comparative data. Therefore, the current paper seeks to answer the following research question: Does support for populism trigger fear of AI?
To answer this research question, the current paper draws on original public opinion data (N = 10,842) collected in 2023 in six European countries: France, The Netherlands, Italy, Poland, Hungary, and Romania. We firstly deconstruct support for populism, by looking into variables that explain adherence to this political narrative, e.g. anger (Rico et al., 2017), political anxiety (Mudde & Kaltwasser, 2013), credulity (Van Prooijen et al., 2022), cynicism, support for authoritarianism, and zero-sum thinking among individuals who feel politically disempowered (Papaioannou et al., 2023). Then, based on a number of regression models, we develop a nuanced comparative understanding over the relationship between support for the populist logic and fear of AI. Additionally, we investigate whether there are specific social groups (based on age, gender, education) that perceive the impact of AI as more adverse.
The comparative approach provides a correction to seeing critical attitudes as the product of any one place. Moreover, the ambition that underpins the entire approach of the paper is that of bringing a contribution to identifying how receptivity to populism can alter public perceptions related to a defining new avenue of social development during unprecedented times for Europe and the world, as well as to identify how the negative effects of AI can be mitigated, while maximizing its benefits.


References:
Hawkins, K. A., & Kaltwasser, C. R. (2017). The ideational approach to populism. Latin American Research Review, 52(4), 513-528.
Levy, F. (2018). Computers and populism: artificial intelligence, jobs, and politics in the near term. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 34(3), 393-417.
Makridakis, S. (2017). The forthcoming Artificial Intelligence (AI) revolution: Its impact on society and firms. Futures, 90, 46-60.
Mudde, C., & Kaltwasser, C. R. (2013). Exclusionary vs. inclusionary populism: Comparing contemporary Europe and Latin America. Government and opposition, 48(2), 147-174.
Papaioannou, K., Pantazi, M., & van Prooijen, J. W. (2023). Unravelling the relationship between populism and belief in conspiracy theories: The role of cynicism, powerlessness and zero‐sum thinking. British Journal of Psychology, 114(1), 159-175.
Rico, G., Guinjoan, M., & Anduiza, E. (2017). The emotional underpinnings of populism: How anger and fear affect populist attitudes. Swiss Political Science Review, 23(4), 444-461.
Stoica, M. S. (2021). Populist political advertising in times of pandemic: Framing elites as anti-religious. Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, 115-127.
Van Prooijen, J. W., Cohen Rodrigues, T., Bunzel, C., Georgescu, O., Komáromy, D., & Krouwel, A. P. (2022). Populist gullibility: Conspiracy theories, news credibility, bullshit receptivity, and paranormal belief. Political Psychology.

Authors

• Mihnea Simion Stoica, Babeș-Bolyai University

• Andreea Voina, Babes-Bolyai University

• Ioan Hosu, Babes-Bolyai University