Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38920509›Full record

ArticleEntropy (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Intermediate Judgments and Trust in Artificial Intelligence-Supported Decision-Making.

Scott Humr, Mustafa Canan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Entropy (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Scott HumrDepartment of Information Sciences, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA 93943, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2257-3072
Mustafa CananDepartment of Information Sciences, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA 93943, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2066-9559

Funding

Military Sealift Command N0003323WX00531
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human decision-making is increasingly supported by artificial intelligence (AI) systems. From medical imaging analysis to self-driving vehicles, AI systems are becoming organically embedded in a host of different technologies. However, incorporating such advice into decision-making entails a human rationalization of AI outputs for supporting beneficial outcomes. Recent research suggests intermediate judgments in the first stage of a decision process can interfere with decisions in subsequent stages. For this reason, we extend this research to AI-supported decision-making to investigate how intermediate judgments on AI-provided advice may influence subsequent decisions. In an online experiment (N = 192), we found a consistent bolstering effect in trust for those who made intermediate judgments and over those who did not. Furthermore, violations of total probability were observed at all timing intervals throughout the study. We further analyzed the results by demonstrating how quantum probability theory can model these types of behaviors in human-AI decision-making and ameliorate the understanding of the interaction dynamics at the confluence of human factors and information features.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencedecision-makingquantum decision theoryquantum open systems modelingtrust

Identifiers

PMID38920509
PMCPMC11202881

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.