Latent Profiles of AI Risk Perception and Their Differential Association with Community Driving Safety Concerns: A Person-Centered Analysis

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.04849v1
• Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2026 16:50:43 GMT
• Title: Latent Profiles of AI Risk Perception and Their Differential Association with Community Driving Safety Concerns: A Person-Centered Analysis
• Abstract summary: This study identifies latent profiles of AI risk perception among U.S. adults.<n>It tests whether these profiles are differentially associated with community driving safety concerns.
• Score: 0.9694940903078657
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Public attitudes toward artificial intelligence (AI) and driving safety are typically studied in isolation using variable-centered methods that assume population homogeneity, yet risk perception theory predicts that these evaluations covary within individuals as expressions of underlying worldviews. This study identifies latent profiles of AI risk perception among U.S. adults and tests whether these profiles are differentially associated with community driving safety concerns. Latent class analysis was applied to nine AI risk-perception indicators from a nationally representative survey (Pew Research Center American Trends Panel Wave 152, n = 5,255); Bolck-Croon-Hagenaars corrected distal outcome analysis tested class differences on nine driving-safety outcomes, and survey-weighted multinomial logistic regression identified demographic and ideological predictors of class membership. Four classes emerged: Moderate Skeptics (17.5%), Concerned Pragmatists (42.8%), AI Ambivalent (10.6%), and Extreme Alarm (29.1%), with all nine driving-safety outcomes significantly differentiated across classes. Higher AI concern mapped monotonically onto greater perceived driving-hazard severity; the exception, comparative evaluation of AI versus human driving, was driven by trust rather than concern level. The cross-domain covariation provides person-level evidence for the worldview-based risk structuring posited by Cultural Theory of Risk and yields a four-class segmentation framework for AV communication that links AI risk orientation to transportation safety attitudes.

Related papers

• SLIP & ETHICS: Graduated Intervention for AI Emotional Companions [2.7254915857994324]
  AI emotional companions face a safety-rapport paradox: restrictive safeguards can damage supportive alliance, while permissive systems risk user harm.<n>We present SLIP (Staged Layers of Intervention Protocol), a four-stage graduated methodology deriving interventions from structured qualitative indicators.<n>Initial results showed that 8 consecutive days of high-energy elevation produced zero interventions (0/8), exposing a boundary where the "do not pathologize" principle conflicts with safety.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-15T12:53:39Z)
• Emergent Strategic Reasoning Risks in AI: A Taxonomy-Driven Evaluation Framework [63.74295981594549]
  Large language models (LLMs) engage in behaviors that serve their own objectives.<n>These include, but are not limited to, deception (intentionally misleading users or evaluators), evaluation gaming (strategically manipulating performance during safety testing), and reward hacking.<n>We introduce ESRRSim, a taxonomy-driven agentic framework for automated behavioral risk evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-23T23:44:01Z)
• Community Driving-Safety Deterioration as a Push Factor for Public Endorsement of AI Driving Capability [1.089614199781423]
  Road traffic crashes claim approximately 1.19 million lives annually worldwide.<n>This study examines a moderated mediation model in which perceived community driving-safety concern (PCSC) predicts evaluations of AI versus human driving capability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-06T15:46:41Z)
• CASTLE: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating Student-Tailored Personalized Safety in Large Language Models [55.0103764229311]
  We propose the concept of Student-Tailored Personalized Safety and construct CASTLE based on educational theories.<n>This benchmark covers 15 educational safety risks and 14 student attributes, comprising 92,908 bilingual scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-05T13:13:19Z)
• Toward Quantitative Modeling of Cybersecurity Risks Due to AI Misuse [50.87630846876635]
  We develop nine detailed cyber risk models.<n>Each model decomposes attacks into steps using the MITRE ATT&CK framework.<n>Individual estimates are aggregated through Monte Carlo simulation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-09T17:54:17Z)
• AILuminate: Introducing v1.0 of the AI Risk and Reliability Benchmark from MLCommons [62.374792825813394]
  This paper introduces AILuminate v1.0, the first comprehensive industry-standard benchmark for assessing AI-product risk and reliability.<n>The benchmark evaluates an AI system's resistance to prompts designed to elicit dangerous, illegal, or undesirable behavior in 12 hazard categories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-19T05:58:52Z)
• Perception Gaps in Risk, Benefit, and Value Between Experts and Public Challenge Socially Accepted AI [0.0]
  This study examines how the general public and academic AI experts perceive AI's capabilities and impact.<n>The scenarios span domains such as sustainability, healthcare, job performance, societal inequality, art, and warfare.<n>Experts consistently anticipate higher probabilities, perceive lower risks, report greater benefits, and express more positive sentiment toward AI compared to the non-experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T12:51:45Z)
• Mapping Public Perception of Artificial Intelligence: Expectations, Risk-Benefit Tradeoffs, and Value As Determinants for Societal Acceptance [0.20971479389679332]
  Using a representative sample of 1100 participants from Germany, this study examines mental models of AI.<n>Participants quantitatively evaluated 71 statements about AI's future capabilities.<n>We present rankings of these projections alongside visual mappings illustrating public risk-benefit tradeoffs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-28T20:03:01Z)
• ASSERT: Automated Safety Scenario Red Teaming for Evaluating the Robustness of Large Language Models [65.79770974145983]
  ASSERT, Automated Safety Scenario Red Teaming, consists of three methods -- semantically aligned augmentation, target bootstrapping, and adversarial knowledge injection. We partition our prompts into four safety domains for a fine-grained analysis of how the domain affects model performance. We find statistically significant performance differences of up to 11% in absolute classification accuracy among semantically related scenarios and error rates of up to 19% absolute error in zero-shot adversarial settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-14T17:10:28Z)
• A Counterfactual Safety Margin Perspective on the Scoring of Autonomous Vehicles' Riskiness [52.27309191283943]
  This paper presents a data-driven framework for assessing the risk of different AVs' behaviors. We propose the notion of counterfactual safety margin, which represents the minimum deviation from nominal behavior that could cause a collision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-02T09:48:08Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.