ArticleFrontiers in psychology2021
Exploring Peoples' Perception of Autonomy and Reactance in Everyday AI Interactions.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI Chatbot Anthropomorphism and Consumer Decision-Making: A Dual-Pathway Calibration Model.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Consumer Autonomy in Generative AI Services: The Role of Task Difficulty and AI Design Elements in Enhancing Trust, Satisfaction, and Usage Intention.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence applications in prostate cancer.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2024Review
- The impact of AI on education and careers: What do students think?Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2024Article
- Are physicians ready for precision antibiotic prescribing? A qualitative analysis of the acceptance of artificial intelligence-enabled clinical decision support systems in India and Singapore.Journal of global antimicrobial resistance · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Applications using Artificial Intelligence (AI) have become commonplace and embedded in our daily lives. Much of our communication has transitioned from human-human interaction to human-technology or technology-mediated interaction. As technology is handed over control and streamlines choices and decision-making in different contexts, people are increasingly concerned about a potential threat to their autonomy. In this paper, we explore autonomy perception when interacting with AI-based applications in everyday contexts using a design fiction-based survey with 328 participants. We probed if providing users with explanations on "why" an application made certain choices or decisions influenced their perception of autonomy or reactance regarding the interaction with the applications. We also looked at changes in perception when users are aware of AI's presence in an application. In the social media context, we found that people perceived a greater reactance and lower sense of autonomy perhaps owing to the personal and identity-sensitive nature of the application context. Providing explanations on "why" in the navigation context, contributed to enhancing their autonomy perception, and reducing reactance since it influenced the users' subsequent actions based on the recommendation. We discuss our findings and the implications it has for the future development of everyday AI applications that respect human autonomy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.