studies on risk perceptions across the Global North and South

web

SAGE Journals(peer-reviewed)·journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/19401612241304050

Credibility Rating

4/5

High(4)

High quality. Established institution or organization with editorial oversight and accountability.

Rating inherited from publication venue: SAGE Journals

A comparative empirical study on AI risk perceptions across Global North and South populations; relevant for researchers and policymakers seeking to understand how diverse publics perceive AI risks and informing globally inclusive AI governance approaches.

Metadata

Importance: 42/100journal articleanalysis

Summary

This study examines how perceptions of AI-related risks differ between populations in the Global North and Global South, exploring cross-cultural variation in public understanding and concern about artificial intelligence. It contributes comparative empirical data on how geographic and socioeconomic context shapes attitudes toward AI risks and governance.

Key Points

•Compares AI risk perception across diverse global populations, highlighting North-South divides in attitudes and concerns
•Provides empirical survey or study data on public understanding of AI risks in underrepresented regions
•Examines how cultural, economic, and political contexts influence perceived threats from AI systems
•Relevant to inclusive AI governance frameworks that account for diverse global stakeholder perspectives
•Challenges assumptions that AI risk discourse is universal by documenting significant cross-regional variation

Cited by 1 page

Page	Type	Quality
AI-Era Epistemic Infrastructure	Approach	59.0

Cached Content Preview

HTTP 200Fetched Mar 20, 202698 KB

[Skip to main content](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/19401612241304050#skipNavigationTo)

Intended for healthcare professionals

[The International Journal of Press/Politics](https://journals.sagepub.com/home/HIJ)

[Impact Factor: **4.3**/ 5-Year Impact Factor: **6.4**](https://journals.sagepub.com/metrics/hij)

[Journal Homepage](https://journals.sagepub.com/home/HIJ)

[Submission Guidelines](https://journals.sagepub.com/author-instructions/HIJ)

Contents

- [Abstract](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/19401612241304050#abstract)
- [Theoretical Framework](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/19401612241304050#sec-1)
- [Methods](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/19401612241304050#sec-2)
- [Results](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/19401612241304050#sec-3)
- [Discussion](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/19401612241304050#sec-4)
- [Declaration of Conflicting Interests](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/19401612241304050#conflict)
- [Funding](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/19401612241304050#funding)
- [ORCID iD](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/19401612241304050#orcid)
- [References](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/19401612241304050#bibliography)
- [Biographies](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/19401612241304050#biographies)
- [Supplementary Material](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/19401612241304050#supplementary-materials)

[PDF/EPUB](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/reader/10.1177/19401612241304050)

[More](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/19401612241304050#core-collateral-more)

## Abstract

Mis- and disinformation have been associated with detrimental political consequences, such as increasing ideological and epistemic polarization. Yet, we know little about how people perceive the risks of misinformation across countries and domains of information. As holding high-risk perceptions of encountering misinformation across domains may result in high levels of media cynicism and uncertainty, it is important to explore news users’ relative risk perceptions related to mis- and disinformation. Therefore, this article relies on original survey data collected in seven countries: Argentina ( _N_ = 507), Brazil ( _N_ = 650), Chile ( _N_ = 485), Mexico ( _N_ = 461), the United States ( _N_ = 521), Spain ( _N_ = 576), and the Netherlands ( _N_ = 518) (total _N_ = 3,718). Main findings indicate that news users arrive at high estimates of mis- and disinformation’s proportion across all countries. Although higher-risk information domains (i.e., political advertising) are generally more likely to be associated with misinformation than lower-risk domains (i.e., scientific evidence), our findings foreground important country-level differences that relate to varying levels of resilience across the seven democracies studied. Our findings offer important evidence for the relative assessments of risk related to misinformation across contexts that vary on vulnerabili

... (truncated, 98 KB total)

Resource ID: 8e0a70a3261e2dc1 | Stable ID: Y2QzYzFmZj