arXiv:2606.13734cs.AI2026-06

低数字素养者更愿用非文本类AI工具,而非整体更接受AI。

AI Receptivity or AI Adoption Breadth? A Tool-Specific Reanalysis of the Lower-Literacy/Higher-Usage Link

  • 按工具类型细分发现,低素养者更倾向使用非文本类AI
  • 非文本类工具采用率与素养负相关(β = -0.377, p < .001)
  • 适合关注工具差异的政策制定与产品设计者阅读

Tully、Longoni和Appel(2025)近期研究指出,低人工智能素养者对AI更具接受度。我们基于该研究第三项实验的公开数据,重新分析五类AI工具的过去使用频率(五点量表)。在参与者层面平均值的OLS、二元逻辑回归、有序逻辑回归及多项逻辑回归模型中,均复现了素养与总体AI使用间的负相关关系。但进一步分析显示,这一总体趋势被工具类型异质性掩盖:在调整人口统计变量后,素养对文本类AI使用无显著预测作用(有序逻辑回归 β = -0.090, p = .387),而对非文本类工具仍具强预测力(β = -0.377, p < .001)。该结果在原始控制设定下同样稳健(β = -0.502, p < .001)。二元、有序及多项回归表明,这种关系主要体现为是否使用而非使用强度:使用非文本类工具的几率比为0.68。因此,在测量实际使用而非态度的样本中,证据不支持‘低素养者普遍更接受AI’这一简单结论,而是指向一种在渗透率较低的非文本类工具中更广泛的采用模式。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

Recent evidence reported by Tully, Longoni, and Appel (2025) suggests that lower artificial intelligence (AI) literacy predicts greater receptivity toward AI. We revisit this claim using the public data from Study 3 of that article, which measures past usage of five AI tool categories on a five-point frequency scale. We first reproduce the negative association between AI literacy and aggregate AI usage using OLS on participant-level averages, binary logit, ordered logit, and multinomial logit specifications. We then show that the aggregate relationship masks substantial heterogeneity by tool type. In our demographic-adjusted primary specification, AI literacy does not significantly predict text AI usage (ordered-logit $β$ = -0.090, p = .387), whereas it remains a strong predictor of non-text AI adoption ($β$ = -0.377, p < .001). The non-text effect is also robust under Tully et al.'s original Study 3 control specification ($β$ = -0.502, p < .001). Binary, ordered-logit, and multinomial specifications suggest that the non-text relationship is primarily an adoption/non-adoption pattern rather than evidence of intensive use: the demographic-adjusted odds ratio of ever having used a non-text AI tool is 0.68. Thus, in the study that measures self-reported past usage rather than stated preferences, the evidence does not support a simple claim that lower AI literacy predicts greater receptivity to AI in general. It points instead to a narrower pattern of broader adoption across lower-penetration, non-text AI tools.

AI接受度工具差异用户行为

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。