The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How situational risk shapes pilots’ decision-making in response to human-versus AI-labeled recommendations
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance
Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392 · Cited by 6,605
Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse
Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. (1997) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872097778543886 · Cited by 4,554
Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err.
Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P., & Massey, C. (2015) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/xge0000033 · Cited by 3,232
The Diffusion Decision Model: Theory and Data for Two-Choice Decision Tasks
Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (2008) · Neural Computation · doi:10.1162/neco.2008.12-06-420 · Cited by 3,059
Trust in Automation: Integrating Empirical Evidence on Factors That Influence Trust
Hoff, K. A., & Bashir, M. (2015) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720814547570 · Cited by 2,817
Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment
Logg, J. M., Minson, J. A., & Moore, D. A. (2019) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.12.005 · Cited by 2,061
Resistance to Medical Artificial Intelligence
Longoni, C., Bonezzi, A., & Morewedge, C. K. (2019) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1093/jcr/ucz013 · Cited by 2,015
Risko, E. F., & Gilbert, S. J. (2016) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.002 · Cited by 1,502
Task-Dependent Algorithm Aversion
Castelo, N., Bos, M. W., & Lehmann, D. R. (2019) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/0022243719851788 · Cited by 1,500
Task-Dependent Algorithm Aversion
Castelo, N., Bos, M. W., Bos, M. W., Lehmann, D. R., & Lehmann, D. R. (2019) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-88067-4_21 · Cited by 1,441
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- 2024, Continuous descent final approach (CDFA) (AC-135-FS-016), Civil Aviat. Administ. China
- 2000, FSF ALAR briefing note 7.1: stabilized approach. approach-and-landing accident reduction, ALAR) Tool Kit
- Liu, 2026, From collective human opinions to AI algorithms: how advice source influences judgment of behavioral health risks, Appl. Psychol.: Health Well-Being, 18
- Lyons, 2017, Comparing trust in auto-GCAS between experienced and novice air force pilots, Ergon. Des, 25, 4
- Pan, 2025, dockerHDDM: a user-friendly environment for bayesian hierarchical drift-diffusion modeling, Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci., 8, 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Peng, X., Wang, X., Zhang, J., Liang, Y., Jiang, H., & Yang, J.
- Venue
- International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2026-11
- Volume
- 116
- Pages
- 104042
- ISSN
- 0169-8141
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 43
- Language
- en
- Licence
- www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
- www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-017 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-037 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-012 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-029 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-004 (stm-asf)
- Funders
- Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (25CAFUC07003)
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: How situational risk shapes pilots’ decision-making in response to human-versus AI-labeled recommendations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ergon.2026.104042
- The paper
- Peng, X., Wang, X., Zhang, J., Liang, Y., Jiang, H., & Yang, J. (2026). How situational risk shapes pilots’ decision-making in response to human-versus AI-labeled recommendations. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2026.104042
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.
