TLDR: New research from the University of Exeter and YouGov surveys highlight significant social disparities in how individuals in Germany and the UK use and perceive generative AI technologies like ChatGPT. Age, gender, occupation, and socioeconomic class are key factors influencing both adoption rates and views on AI’s impact on job security, with non-users and older demographics more likely to view AI as a threat.
Recent studies conducted by the University of Exeter and YouGov reveal pronounced social divides in the adoption and perception of generative artificial intelligence (AI) across Germany and the United Kingdom. These findings underscore how factors such as age, gender, occupation, and socioeconomic status significantly shape individuals’ engagement with and attitudes towards AI technologies.
In the UK, research from the University of Exeter, based on a YouGov online survey of 1,061 people in March 2025, indicates that deep age, gender, occupation, and class-based social divides exist in how people use generative AI applications, such as ChatGPT, and how they perceive their impact on job security. A striking finding is that individuals who do not use GenAI and those in older age groups are more inclined to view the technology as a threat to their employment rather than an opportunity. Conversely, frequent users of GenAI, both in their private lives and at work, are more likely to see it as an opportunity.
Specifically, among professionals and managers, 41 percent viewed GenAI as a job opportunity, a figure that dropped to just 25 percent for those in administrative, sales, or service roles. Alarmingly, 39 percent of respondents in admin, sales, and service jobs, and 35 percent in manual roles, perceived GenAI as a threat to their job security, compared to only 24 percent among professionals and managers. Concerns are particularly widespread within the working class, with 58 percent identifying AI as a threat, versus 33 percent in the middle class. Women and older adults also showed a higher propensity to perceive GenAI as a threat. Interestingly, holding a university degree did not appear to correlate with whether someone viewed GenAI as a threat or an opportunity. The study also noted that Conservative voters more often saw GenAI as an opportunity, while Reform UK voters more frequently viewed it as a threat. The single strongest predictor of an individual’s view was their actual use of GenAI, with even infrequent users being far more likely to see it as an opportunity.
In Germany, a YouGov study conducted in April 2025, focusing on the perception of generative AI in news and brand marketing, presented a nuanced picture of curiosity, benefits, and mistrust. More than a third of German respondents held a negative view of AI’s role in the next decade, with 53% expressing concern about the spread of false information and deepfakes. Despite these apprehensions, many acknowledged advantages such as increased efficiency and cost savings. Over half of respondents were uncomfortable with AI-generated news content on social networks, with older age groups showing more rejection than Generation Z and millennials. Trust remains a critical issue, as 54% of respondents trusted journalistic content created by AI less than human-generated content. In the brand marketing sector, only 15% could imagine consuming content from AI-generated influencers. Furthermore, 61% of respondents believed there was insufficient regulation for generative AI, and 77% advocated for clear labeling of AI-generated content.
Also Read:
- AI Use Linked to Negative Social Perceptions and Professional Penalties, New Research Reveals
- Singapore’s Gen Z Grapples with Generative AI’s Impact on Future Careers
Another German study by the TÜV Association in collaboration with Forsa, surveying 1,001 individuals in October 2024, found that 53% of Germans regularly use generative AI. The majority (82%) access these services via personal computers or laptops, while 55% use smartphones. Patrick Gilroy, artificial intelligence officer at the TÜV Association, highlighted that computers are better suited for complex tasks, while smartphones offer flexibility. He also noted that security concerns vary by device, with smartphones being more vulnerable due to frequent public network connections, emphasizing the importance of user awareness regarding data protection.
