ArticleScientific reports2025
Impacts of cognitive forcing and need for cognition on biased AI-assisted decision making about mental health emergencies.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Applications of Artificial Intelligence in the Health Sector: A PRISMA-Based Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
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) trained to predict psychiatric inpatient violence may overestimate risks for marginalized groups, making it critical to find ways to mitigate reliance on biased AI in this context. One potential solution is Cognitive forcing (CF), or interventions that delay AI information or slow the decision-making process. Benefits of CF may be modulated by traits, such as Need for Cognition (NFC), or the tendency to engage with complex, cognitive tasks. To examine how CF and NFC impact AI-assisted decision-making about violence risk, we conducted two experiments. In Experiment 1, participants (n = 281) made decisions about violence risk based on vignettes describing various patients experiencing mental health emergencies, and they were randomized to view biased or unbiased AI recommendations. In Experiment 2, participants (n = 373) made similar decisions, and they were randomized to view biased AI recommendations with one of three CF interventions or no CF. All participants completed measures of NFC. In both experiments, participants made biased decisions (overestimating violence risk for marginalized patients) when viewing biased AI recommendations. In Experiment 2, CF interventions did not mitigate this decision-making bias; however, participants reporting high NFC were less likely to make biased decisions when viewing biased AI recommendations, compared to those with low NFC. CF may not effectively safeguard against the impact of biased AI in high-stakes settings, like acute mental health care, or for decisions about violence risk prediction, which are fraught with social or racial stereotypes. However, trait NFC may mitigate reliance on biased AI information, highlighting a role of psychological factors. Further research is needed into various factors that promote equitable AI-assisted decision-making for mental health.
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.