Across eight experiments, Keisha Cutright, a Marketing Professor at Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business, and Mustafa Karatas of Nazarbayev University, found that “actively thinking about God” could promote acceptance of AI recommendations in a variety of contexts, including in the choice of movies, financial products, dental treatments, and romantic partners.
“Thinking about God affects how we see things in our environment and our decision-making,” Cutright says.
She explains the motivation behind the study, stating, “One day, it hit me that AI and technology are similar in a lot of ways to religion, in that both of them are often seen as diminishing the role of humans. We wanted to see if the salience of God affects how people rely on AI.”
In their experiments, the researchers randomly exposed half of the participants to tasks or experiences meant to make them think about God. In one study, they asked them to write what God meant to them.
In other experiments, they used more subtle religious cues, like exposing people in the waiting room of a dental clinic to music evocative of God versus secular music, or comparing how proximity to a place of worship influenced choices.
“And of course, we also measured the extent to which participants were religious or not in the first place,” Cutright says. “Because if you are religious, it’s more likely that God is salient to you.”
Perhaps controversially, the results suggested that when people are actively thinking about God, they appear to be less averse to AI and more willing to consider AI-based recommendations.
“Regardless of whether or not we’re religious, we know that God is associated with a sense of power, vastness, and wonder,” Cutright says. “This awe for the divine elicits a sense of smallness and fallibility in people.”
However, Cutright stresses that these findings do not completely overturn people's overall preference for human recommendations. They merely imply that when God is at the forefront of one's thoughts, human recommendations do not hold an overwhelming advantage over AI.
This brings into question whether this influence is truly significant enough to draw concrete conclusions about the impact of religious contemplation on AI trust.
“The preference for the human is pretty strong, but it starts to dampen a bit when you evoke thoughts of God,” Cutright says. “It’s still not going to flip to the point where people have a preference for AI over humans, but now it is probably closer to 50/50 in many situations.”
The research indicates that, in general, religious people may prefer AI recommendations more than non-religious people do. Cutright argues companies should consider these findings when they target certain markets.
“Counter to most people’s intuition, areas with more religious populations may be good places to start with AI-based recommendations,” she claims.
She also says businesses using AI should carefully craft their communications.
“They could use subtle reminders of the smallness of mankind, whether through cues associated with God directly, or other awe-inducing stimuli,” Cutright says. “This may enhance consumers’ openness to AI-based recommendations.”
The suggestion that companies should incorporate subtle reminders of humanity's insignificance to enhance consumer receptivity to AI-based recommendations may, however, raise ethical concerns within some corners. Does manipulating individuals' thoughts in this way align with ethical standards in advertising and consumer choice?
Therefore, while this study raises intriguing questions about the potential influence of religious contemplation on AI trust, the practical significance of these results deserves further scrutiny and discussion.