Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 39

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Partner or subordinate? Sequential risky decision-making behaviors under human-machine collaboration contexts

Xiong, Wei, Wang, Chen, Ma, Liang·2023·Computers in Human Behavior
DOI 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107556
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107556

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 13 references

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. Bobadilla-Suarez, 2017, The intrinsic value of choice: The propensity to under-delegate in the face of potential gains and losses, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 54, 187, 10.1007/s11166-017-9259-x · DOI
  2. Brassen, 2012, Don't look back in anger! Responsiveness to missed chances in successful and nonsuccessful aging, Science, 336, 612, 10.1126/science.1217516 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Damacharla, 2018, Common metrics to benchmark human-machine teams (HMT): A review, IEEE Access, 6, 38637, 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2853560 · DOI
  4. Dawes, 1979, The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making, American Psychologist, 34, 571, 10.1037/0003-066X.34.7.571 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Engl, 2018, A theory of causal responsibility attribution, SSRN Electronic Journal, 10.2139/ssrn.2932769 · DOI
  6. Fast, 2012, Power and overconfident decision-making, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117, 249, 10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.11.009 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Festinger, 1954, A theory of social comparison processes, Human Relations, 7, 117, 10.1177/001872675400700202 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Gonzalez, 2022, Allying with AI? Reactions toward human-based, AI/ML-based, and augmented hiring processes, Computers in Human Behavior, 130, 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107179 · DOI
  9. Hedges, 1981, Distribution theory for Glass's estimator of effect size and related estimators, Journal of Educational Statistics, 6, 107, 10.3102/10769986006002107 · doi:10.3102/10769986006002107 · Paper page
  10. Jarrahi, 2018, Artificial intelligence and the future of work: Human-AI symbiosis in organizational decision making, Business Horizons, 61, 577, 10.1016/j.bushor.2018.03.007 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Kirchkamp, 2019, Sharing responsibility with a machine, Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 80, 25, 10.1016/j.socec.2019.02.010 · DOI
  12. Langer, 2021, The future of artificial intelligence at work: A review on effects of decision automation and augmentation on workers targeted by algorithms and third-party observers, Computers in Human Behavior, 123, 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106878 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Lejuez, 2003, Evaluation of the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) as a predictor of adolescent real-world risk-taking behaviours, Journal of Adolescence, 26, 475, 10.1016/S0140-1971(03)00036-8 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Lejuez, 2002, Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking the balloon Analogue risk task (BART), Journal of Experimenral Psychology: Applied, 8, 75
  15. Liu, 2021, In AI we trust? Effects of agency locus and transparency on uncertainty reduction in human-AI interaction, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 26, 384, 10.1093/jcmc/zmab013 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Li, 2021, Culture, thinking styles and investment decision, Psychological Reports, 1–28
  17. Lourenço, 2020, Whose algorithm says so: The relationships between type of firm, perceptions of trust and expertise, and the acceptance of financial robo-advice, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 49, 107, 10.1016/j.intmar.2019.10.003 · DOI
  18. Maner, 2007, Power, risk, and the status quo: Does power promote riskier or more conservative decision making?, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 451, 10.1177/0146167206297405 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Mittal, 2019, Behavior biases and investment decision: Theoretical and research framework, Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, 14, 213, 10.1108/QRFM-09-2017-0085 · DOI
  20. Nagtegaal, 2021, The impact of using algorithms for managerial decisions on public employees' procedural justice, Government Information Quarterly, 10.1016/j.giq.2020.101536 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Patel, 2019, Human – machine partnership with artificial intelligence for chest radiograph diagnosis, Npj Digital Medicine, 2, 1
  22. Pleskac, 2008, Development of an automatic response mode to improve the clinical utility of sequential risk-taking tasks, Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 16, 555, 10.1037/a0014245 · DOI
  23. Rao, 2008, Neural correlates of voluntary and involuntary risk taking in the human brain: An fMRI Study of the Balloon Analog Risk Task (BART), NeuroImage, 42, 902, 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.05.046 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Saragih, 2022, The effect of past algorithmic performance and decision significance on algorithmic advice acceptance, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 38, 1228, 10.1080/10447318.2021.1990518 · DOI
  25. Schmitz, 2016, The multiple faces of risk-taking scoring alternatives for the balloon-analogue risk task, European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 32, 17, 10.1027/1015-5759/a000335 · DOI
  26. Seong, 2008, The impact of cognitive feedback on judgment performance and trust with decision aids, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 38, 608, 10.1016/j.ergon.2008.01.007 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Shin, 2019, Role of fairness, accountability, and transparency in algorithmic affordance, Computers in Human Behavior, 98, 277, 10.1016/j.chb.2019.04.019 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Tschandl, 2020, Human-computer collaboration for skin cancer recognition, Nature Medicine, 26, 1229, 10.1038/s41591-020-0942-0 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Uggirala, 2004, Measurement of trust in complex and dynamic systems using a quantitative approach, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 34, 175, 10.1016/j.ergon.2004.03.005 · DOI
  30. Wallsten, 2005, Modeling behavior in a clinically diagnostic sequential risk-taking task, Psychological Review, 112, 862, 10.1037/0033-295X.112.4.862 · DOI
  31. Wang, 2019, Agreeableness modulates group member risky decision-making behavior and brain activity, NeuroImage, 202, 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116100 · DOI
  32. Wesche, 2019, When computers take the lead : The automation of leadership, Computers in Human Behavior, 101, 197, 10.1016/j.chb.2019.07.027 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Wynne, 2018, An integrative model of autonomous agent teammate-likeness, Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 19, 353, 10.1080/1463922X.2016.1260181 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Xiong, 2022, Challenges of human-machine collaboration in risky decision-making, Frontiers of Engineering Management, 9, 89, 10.1007/s42524-021-0182-0 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Xu, 2019, Towards human-centered AI: A perspective from human- computer interaction, Interactions, 26, 42, 10.1145/3328485 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Zanatto, 2021, Human-machine sense of agency, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 156, 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102716 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Xiong, W., Wang, C., & Ma, L.
ORCID
Venue
Computers in Human Behavior
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-02
Volume
139
Pages
107556
ISSN
0747-5632
DOI
10.1016/j.chb.2022.107556
Cited by
39
References
13
Language
en
Licence
Funders
National Natural Science Foundation of China (71942005, 72192824)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.