Integrating Civic and Artificial Intelligence in Policymaking
Experimental Insights on Public Perceptions of Policy Proposals
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21837686 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Seulki Lee-Geiller (0000-0001-5183-6631, Institution for Social and Policy Studies Yale University New Haven Connecticut USA) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Volume | 17 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Publication date | 2025-09-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Policy & Internet (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1944-2866 • E-ISSN: 1944-2866 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1002/poi3.70017 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 60 |
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into policymaking raises pressing questions about whether it can reconcile technocratic efficiency with democratic legitimacy. While existing literature offers mixed assessments, few studies systematically examine how AI, especially when paired with democratic processes, shapes public perceptions of policymaking. To address this gap, we apply the output–input legitimacy framework to assess how different AI deployment conditions influence public attitudes toward policy proposals. Using a vignette‐based online experiment with a US representative sample ( N = 3055), we combine descriptive statistics, causal inference, and dimensionality‐reduction techniques. Our results offer a multidimensional perspective on how public perceptions are shaped by the interaction of individual characteristics, technological conditions, and procedural design. While AI treatments generally yield directionally more favorable responses, these effects are filtered through attitudinal and identity‐based lenses, whose salience varies across contexts. This perspective enriches theoretical debates and highlights the complexity of building legitimacy in an era of algorithmic governance. It also challenges binary narratives that portray AI solely as a technocratic solution or democratic threat. These insights also offer practical guidance for the democratic integration of AI in public decision‐making
The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion
The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making
A systemic approach to deliberative democracy
The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation
Big data in the policy cycle
Principal component analysis
Rethink government with AI
User Acceptance of Information Technology
AI Trust
Digital ageism
Precaution in public
Artificial intelligence, transparency, and public decision-making
The Technocratic Challenge to Democracy
Socioeconomic Status Measurement With Discrete Proxy Variables
“Co-construction” in deliberative democracy
Implications of the use of artificial intelligence in public governance
Who wants technocrats? A comparative study of citizen attitudes in nine young and consolidated democracies
Native Hawaiians and psychology
Quality of Life Indexes for National Policy
How do citizens perceive the use of Artificial Intelligence in public sector decisions
Using government websites to enhance democratic E-governance
Policy making 2.0
A shallow defence of a technocracy of artificial intelligence
After authoritarian technocracy
Experts replacing governments? The socio-cultural and authoritarian roots of citizens’ preferences for experts in government in 58 countries
The Lure of Technocrats
Technocratic attitudes
Public Opinion and Public Policy, 1980-1993
Liberal Democracy and the Limits of Democratization
Legitimacy and Public Policy
Citizens’ Evaluations of the Public Sector
Procedural Fairness and the Legitimacy of Agency Rulemaking
How AI Threatens Democracy
Transparency actually
Bring in the experts? Citizen preferences for independent experts in political decision‐making processes
The meaning and measure of state legitimacy
A Re-assessment of the Concept of Political Support
Citizens’ trust in AI-enabled government systems
The Influence of Specific Risk Perceptions on Public Policy Support
The Technocratic Image and the Theory of Technocracy
Measuring Political Legitimacy
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |