Poles are more likely to believe that the negative consequences of artificial intelligence will affect others rather than themselves or their close ones. The further away the reference group, the higher the perceived risk associated with AI.
The rapid development of artificial intelligence has sparked an intense public and academic debate, in which fascination with the technology’s capabilities is increasingly intertwined with concerns about its long-term impact.
Dynamic changes such as those driven by AI tools influence how people function psychologically. When the future is uncertain, it becomes easier to experience anxiety, but also to adopt ways of thinking that help reduce that anxiety.
“In such situations, people often activate psychological strategies that protect their sense of security. One of the best-known tendencies is unrealistic optimism—the belief that negative events are more likely to happen to others than to ourselves,” explains Dr. Paweł Muniak, a psychologist at SWPS University.
AI Seen as More Threatening to Others
The analysis shows a clear and consistent pattern: as the reference group becomes more distant—from “you and your close ones” to “someone in your city,” “a citizen,” and finally “a person in the world”—the perceived risk associated with AI increases.
Survey results based on a representative sample of Poles indicate that this pattern remains stable across most socio-demographic groups. Age, education level, and professional status do not significantly change how people compare risks between themselves and others.
The only notable difference relates to gender. Women tend to report a higher overall perception of risk related to artificial intelligence than men. However, the underlying pattern remains the same for both groups: the risk is consistently attributed more to “others” than to oneself.
A Psychological Mechanism in Times of Uncertainty
According to experts, this pattern aligns with the theory of unrealistic optimism. Risk is psychologically shifted outward—from oneself and close relations to increasingly abstract and distant groups.
“This suggests that unrealistic optimism is not driven by specific interests or life situations, but rather reflects a general psychological way of organizing risk under uncertainty,” says Dr. Muniak. “Even if people recognize AI-related threats as real, they may still assume that these risks will primarily affect others and therefore do not require immediate action in their own lives.”
Practical Consequences for Society and the Economy
This way of thinking can have tangible consequences. If risks are perceived as affecting others, individuals may feel less urgency to prepare for change. This can weaken motivation to take adaptive actions, such as developing new skills, learning how to use AI tools effectively, improving digital hygiene, critically verifying content, or protecting personal data.
At a broader level, the same mechanism may reduce public support for preventive measures such as education programs, reskilling initiatives, and regulatory frameworks. The costs of such actions are immediate, while their benefits are often perceived as distant or benefiting others.
Experts emphasize that communication about AI risks should translate abstract threats into concrete, everyday scenarios. This can help counter the instinctive belief that “it only affects others” and strengthen a sense of agency and the need for early preparation.
