ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023
Check the box! How to deal with automation bias in AI-based personnel selection.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A novel AI system for preliminary triage support in single-tooth edentulous spaces using intraoral images.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Warning people about the risk of AI error mitigates human acquisition of AI bias.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2026Article
- Michael is better than Mehmet: exploring the perils of algorithmic biases and selective adherence to advice from automated decision support systems in hiring.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Humans inherit artificial intelligence biases.Scientific reports · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) as decision support for personnel preselection, e.g., in the form of a dashboard, promises a more effective and fairer selection process. However, AI-based decision support systems might prompt decision makers to thoughtlessly accept the system's recommendation. As this so-called automation bias contradicts ethical and legal requirements of human oversight for the use of AI-based recommendations in personnel preselection, the present study investigates strategies to reduce automation bias and increase decision quality. Based on the Elaboration Likelihood Model, we assume that instructing decision makers about the possibility of system errors and their responsibility for the decision, as well as providing an appropriate level of data aggregation should encourage decision makers to process information systematically instead of heuristically. We conducted a 3 (general information, information about system errors, information about responsibility) x 2 (low vs. high aggregated data) experiment to investigate which strategy can reduce automation bias and enhance decision quality. We found that less automation bias in terms of higher scores on verification intensity indicators correlated with higher objective decision quality, i.e., more suitable applicants selected. Decision makers who received information about system errors scored higher on verification intensity indicators and rated subjective decision quality higher, but decision makers who were informed about their responsibility, unexpectedly, did not. Regarding aggregation level of data, decision makers of the highly aggregated data group spent less time on the level of the dashboard where highly aggregated data were presented. Our results show that it is important to inform decision makers who interact with AI-based decision-support systems about potential system errors and provide them with less aggregated data to reduce automation bias and enhance decision quality.
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.