IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/b5re6_v1.html

Governing Artificial Intelligence: Public Preferences and Regulatory Options

Author

Listed:
  • Lundgren, Magnus
  • Tallberg, Jonas

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming economies, societies, and polities, raising fundamental questions about how it should be regulated. Policymakers face choices over whether to prioritize innovation or safety, rely on public oversight or private self-regulation, and govern nationally or internationally. Yet little is known about how citizens evaluate these competing priorities. Here we report a conjoint survey experiment conducted in seven countries with diverse political and economic profiles. We find that citizens strongly support regulating AI and generally prioritize safety over innovation, public governance over private self-regulation, and international over national approaches. The preference for safety is strongest among those who perceive AI as risky, unpredictable, and personally consequential. These findings reveal a systematic misalignment between dominant regulatory approaches and citizen preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Lundgren, Magnus & Tallberg, Jonas, 2026. "Governing Artificial Intelligence: Public Preferences and Regulatory Options," SocArXiv b5re6_v1, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:b5re6_v1
    DOI: 10.31235/osf.io/b5re6_v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/6a5866296e662a6260de6d0c/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31235/osf.io/b5re6_v1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ingold, Karin & Stadelmann-Steffen, Isabelle & Kammermann, Lorenz, 2019. "The acceptance of instruments in instrument mix situations: Citizens’ perspective on Swiss energy transition," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Francisco Chicombo, Adélia Filosa & Musango, Josephine Kaviti, 2022. "Towards a theoretical framework for gendered energy transition at the urban household level: A case of Mozambique," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    2. Rita Mendonça & Peter Roebeling & Teresa Fidélis & Miguel Saraiva, 2021. "Policy Instruments to Encourage the Adoption of Nature-Based Solutions in Urban Landscapes," Resources, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-16, August.
    3. Kern, Florian & Rogge, Karoline S. & Howlett, Michael, 2019. "Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: New approaches and insights through bridging innovation and policy studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    4. Sebastian Hemesath & Markus Tepe, 2024. "Multidimensional preference for technology risk regulation: The role of political beliefs, technology attitudes, and national innovation cultures," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), pages 1264-1283, October.
    5. Franziska Steinberger & Tobias Minder & Evelina Trutnevyte, 2020. "Efficiency versus Equity in Spatial Siting of Electricity Generation: Citizen Preferences in a Serious Board Game in Switzerland," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-17, September.
    6. Saskia Manshoven & Wim Van Opstal, 2022. "The Carrot or the Stick? Stakeholder Support for Mandatory Regulations towards a Circular Fashion System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-31, November.
    7. Hirschmann, Mirko, 2025. "One size does not fit all: Sustainable innovation, climate policy, and startups' growth aspirations," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 215(C).

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:b5re6_v1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://socarxiv.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.