Women think artificial intelligence is riskier than men do, study finds

Artificial intelligence (AI) is changing the nature of how people work; however, people have different opinions of the risk and reward of using AI technology. According to a recent study conducted by Beatrice Magistro and her co-authors at Northeastern University, compared to men, women are more likely to view AI (specifically generative AI) as risky. Using large survey samples from the U.S. and Canada, this research also identifies risk exposure and tolerance as possible contributing factors to this gender gap.

Magistro and her team sought to determine why women tended to be more cautious than men toward new technologies. Previous studies about automation indicated that a significant percentage of respondents (approximately half) expressed caution or concern about new technologies. This research proposes that a person’s exposure to risk and tolerance for risk are essential components of understanding their feelings about the uncertainty of using new technologies.

As AI continues to be adopted by more organizations, the potential benefits associated with AI, such as improved productivity and increased intelligence, are countered by significant risks, including job losses, data breaches, and bias in the decision-making process. The consequences of these issues will not affect all people in the same way.

Women comprise a large portion of the administrative, clerical, and service industries and are generally referred to as being among the most vulnerable industries to automation. Additionally, women are underrepresented in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) jobs. Consequently, this imbalance creates barriers for women accessing jobs and leadership positions in AI technology.

Prior studies have also shown that algorithmic biases affect women negatively regarding hiring, lending, and health care. Both of the patterns identified in the study (exposure and orientation) play a role in how women perceive the advantages and disadvantages of AI.

"These two variables are the most influential. Risk exposure determines the extent to which someone may experience negative outcomes, such as being unemployed because of AI, while risk orientation denotes how comfortable a person is with ambiguity," Magistro explained to The Brighter Side of News. "Statistically, women have lower risk tolerance rates than men. When women have high risk exposure but low risk tolerance, they tend to be more skeptical about AI," she continued.

The analysis was conducted using data from 3,049 respondents in Canada and the United States in November 2023 through an opt-in YouGov panel survey. Respondents were asked to rate how strongly they agreed with the statement that generative AI’s potential risks outweigh its benefits for themselves and their communities on a scale of 0 to 10.

To understand attitudes toward risk, respondents were presented with a gamble: they were given the option of receiving $1,000 for certain versus a 0.50 probability of winning $2,000. If an individual chose the former option, this indicated more risk-averse behavior.

Assessing an individual’s exposure to risk from AI is complicated due to the unknown nature of AI’s long-term effects. However, the study used broad metrics associated with postsecondary education as a proxy measure, positing that a higher level of education correlates with greater adaptability to changes stemming from AI. Additionally, the authors reviewed measures of AI risk exposure on a job-by-job basis in supplementary analyses.

In this study, there was a consistent discrepancy in the ratings assigned to AI risk by males and females. The average score for female participants, when asked whether risk outweighed benefits, was 4.87, compared to 4.38 for males. This 11 percent difference is roughly the same size as gender gaps found for other significant economic topics, such as trade.

Women reported significantly higher general risk aversion. This resulted in more women choosing the guaranteed $1,000 payment versus gambling. This pattern was consistent across different education levels.

Exposure was also a factor for workers who did not complete university. Between the two education levels, women experienced a higher level of exposure to technological disruption than men, largely due to the types of occupations women traditionally hold. This result was also supported by additional measurement tools used in the study.

When examining the relationship between risk and exposure, the results were of particular interest when risk orientation and exposure were considered together. Among individuals within the same study group who were willing to take the lottery gamble, men and women had similar perceptions of AI-related risk. A clear gender gap was observed only among those who displayed risk-averse attitudes.

The researchers also found that respondents’ level of education played a major role in their perceptions of AI. Respondents with lower education levels held a stronger belief that the risks presented by AI outweighed its potential benefits. Both men and women with higher education levels perceived lower levels of risk associated with AI, although women still perceived higher risk than men at the same education level.

Risk-averse men displayed somewhat greater sensitivity to their own level of exposure when compared to risk-averse women. However, overall, risk-averse women perceived higher levels of risk associated with AI use in their workplaces.

To further investigate the relationship between risk and uncertainty, the researchers conducted a preregistered survey experiment. In this experiment, participants read about generative AI being considered by an employer for development. Each individual was presented with a potential outcome ranging from a 100 percent chance of net job gain down to 30 percent.

As predicted, as uncertainty increased, support for adopting artificial intelligence decreased more for women than for men. The average level of support among women at a 30 percent net job gain was 2.63 out of five, compared to an average support level of 2.98 out of five for men.

Once the potential for net job gain increased to a guaranteed 100 percent, the gender gap disappeared. Therefore, based on the research, women’s level of support tends to be more dependent than men’s on assurances of net job gain. When the benefits of AI are clear, women, on average, support AI nearly as strongly as men.

The research also collected data on what respondents viewed as the largest risks and most significant benefits of artificial intelligence through open-ended survey questions. A large number of respondents stated that they did not know how AI would benefit them.

A greater proportion of women than men mentioned distrust or skepticism regarding AI’s benefits, while a greater proportion of men identified increased efficiency, productivity, and innovation in medical and scientific fields as the most significant benefits.

Both men and women identified job loss, loss of skills, and financial inequality as primary categories of AI-related risk. However, fewer men than women focused on AI’s impact on job security and loss of human interaction, while more women than men noted concerns about malicious uses of AI, misinformation, and loss of control over the technology.

The results of this research suggest that perceptions of artificial intelligence are shaped by personal experience and the ability to cope with uncertainty. As a result, policymakers should exercise caution when developing AI-related policies, as a one-size-fits-all approach may further entrench existing inequities in technology access and use.

To address skepticism and prevent backlash, public officials should focus on job security, transparency, and clearly demonstrating the benefits of AI implementation.

Additionally, a more inclusive approach to AI research and development may lead to less biased systems and more equitable access to opportunities created by artificial intelligence.

Research findings are available online in the journal PNAS Nexus.

Like these kind of feel good stories? Get The Brighter Side of News' newsletter.