The DOI matches its Crossref record; 78 of the 79 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Automation bias: a systematic review of frequency, effect mediators, and mitigators
Open accessAbstract
Automation bias (AB)--the tendency to over-rely on automation--has been studied in various academic fields. Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) aim to benefit the clinical decision-making process. Although most research shows overall improved performance with use, there is often a failure to recognize the new errors that CDSS can introduce. With a focus on healthcare, a systematic review of the literature from a variety of research fields has been carried out, assessing the frequency and severity of AB, the effect mediators, and interventions potentially mitigating this effect. This is discussed alongside automation-induced complacency, or insufficient monitoring of automation output. A mix of subject specific and freetext terms around the themes of automation, human-automation interaction, and task performance and error were used to search article databases. Of 13 821 retrieved papers, 74 met the inclusion criteria. User factors such as cognitive style, decision support systems (DSS), and task specific experience mediated AB, as did attitudinal driving factors such as trust and confidence. Environmental mediators included workload, task complexity, and time constraint, which pressurized cognitive resources. Mitigators of AB included implementation factors such as training and emphasizing user accountability, and DSS design factors such as the position of advice on the screen, updated confidence levels attached to DSS output, and the provision of information versus recommendation. By uncovering the mechanisms by which AB operates, this review aims to help optimize the clinical decision-making process for CDSS developers and healthcare practitioners.
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The result is a cognitive moral hazard: epistemic responsibility is abdicated not because delegation is appropriate, but because the trainee cannot distinguish appropriate delegation from uncritical acceptance 29 .”
From AI-induced never-skilling in medical education (2026) · cites this paper as [29]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Automation bias, well described in clinical decision support contexts, can lead individuals to privilege automated recommendations even when flawed, contributing to errors of commission or omission and reducing vigilance in information seeking [47].”
From Design and evaluation of a faculty development workshop series on integrating generative artificial intelligence in medical education: mixed methods pilot study (2026) · cites this paper as [47]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“For humans, post-hoc interaction with such outputs is opaque and coarse-grained: experts must reverseengineer the model's reasoning to correct errors, while novices risk automation bias and over-reliance on machine-generated authority [32, 44, 87].”
From Criticmate: Stagewise Human–AI Co-Critique in Single-Screen UI Evaluation (2026) · cites this paper as [32]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“These fi ndings relate to work on automation bias, algorithm aversion, and 'appropriate reliance' [5, 32, 44, 87].”
From Criticmate: Stagewise Human–AI Co-Critique in Single-Screen UI Evaluation (2026) · cites this paper as [32]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“HR professionals might utilize a system for decision support differently, as prior experience with personnel selection tasks is related to higher confidence in one’s own decisions, resulting in a lower reliance on the system and less automation bias (Goddard et al., 2012; Langer et al., 2021).”
From Check the box! How to deal with automation bias in AI-based personnel selection (2023) · cites this paper as Goddard et al., 2012
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“This way, the design of the system can support the attention of decision makers by varying reliability over time (Goddard et al., 2012; Zerilli et al., 2019).”
From Check the box! How to deal with automation bias in AI-based personnel selection (2023) · cites this paper as Goddard et al., 2012
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Automation bias has been found to be a serious problem in contexts of AI-based decision support systems (Mosier and Skitka, 1999; Goddard et al., 2012; Lyell et al., 2018; Davis et al., 2020)”
From Check the box! How to deal with automation bias in AI-based personnel selection (2023) · cites this paper as Goddard et al., 2012
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The core finding is broadly consistent: when humans receive an algorithmic recommendation, they defer to it at rates exceeding what would be warranted by the algorithm's demonstrated accuracy, even when available evidence contradicts the recommendation (Skitka, Mosier, and Burdick 1999;Goddard, Roudsari, and Wyatt 2012).”
From Limits of Interventions in AI-Assisted Decision Making (2026) · cites this paper as Goddard, Roudsari, and Wyatt 2012
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“These factors have also been deemed influential in a systematic review by Goddard et al. (2012).”
From Investigating appropriate reliance on AI-Based decision support systems: the role of expertise, trust, and self-confidence (2025) · cites this paper as Goddard et al., 2012
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The risk of automation bias occurs in this process: a human being relies too heavily on the algorithm, even in the face of erroneous predictions (Goddard et al. 2011).”
From Legitimacy of Algorithmic Decision-Making: Six Threats and the Need for a Calibrated Institutional Response (2022) · cites this paper as Goddard et al. 2011
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In the conclusion of their systematic review, Goddard et al. (2012) propose that expertise may act on primary drivers to influence reliance on DSS, with those primary drivers being trust and confidence, again emphasising that expertise likely plays an indirect role on reliance behaviour.”
From Investigating appropriate reliance on AI-Based decision support systems: the role of expertise, trust, and self-confidence (2025) · cites this paper as Goddard et al., 2012
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Expertise, expected to be a predictor of both trust and reliance (Goddard et al., 2012), has been shown to reduce trust and reliance on AI, even when the user's judgement is incorrect (Küper et al., 2024).”
From Investigating appropriate reliance on AI-Based decision support systems: the role of expertise, trust, and self-confidence (2025) · cites this paper as Goddard et al., 2012
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Goddard et al. (2012) propose that heightened confidence in one's own decisions generally diminishes reliance on external support, identifying confidence as a primary influence on reliance behaviour alongside trust.”
From Investigating appropriate reliance on AI-Based decision support systems: the role of expertise, trust, and self-confidence (2025) · cites this paper as Goddard et al., 2012
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This risk is amplified by automation bias, the tendency to over-rely on algorithmic output, by leading clinicians to accept erroneous recommendations without adequate scrutiny.17-21”
From Automation Bias in Large Language Model Assisted Diagnostic Reasoning Among AI-Trained Physicians (2025) · cites this paper as [18]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The principle of non-discrimination in algorithmic decision-making is the last to consider for completing the algorithmic legality fundamental requirements. This translates into a duty to avoid so-called automation biases 75 , preventing outcomes that might be discriminatory toward the addressee of administrative action.”
From Transparency Warranties for Algorithmic Decisions in Administrative Procedures. Synopsis between EU Law and the Italian Legal System (2026) · cites this paper as Goddard K, Roudsari A, Wyatt JC (2012)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Experimental lab studies have diagnosed this tendency across a number of research fields (Goddard, Roudsari, and Wyatt 2012).”
From Human–AI Interactions in Public Sector Decision Making: “Automation Bias” and “Selective Adherence” to Algorithmic Advice (2023) · cites this paper as Goddard, Roudsari, and Wyatt 2012
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“However, systems to aid decision-making might especially be considered for novice HR professionals as these systems tend to improve the decision-making quality of less experienced decision makers (Goddard et al., 2012; Langer et al., 2021).”
From Check the box! How to deal with automation bias in AI-based personnel selection (2023) · cites this paper as Goddard et al., 2012
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Automation bias has been found to lead to adverse effects on decision outcomes in several other contexts before (e.g., Parasuraman and Manzey, 2010; Goddard et al., 2012).”
From Check the box! How to deal with automation bias in AI-based personnel selection (2023) · cites this paper as Goddard et al., 2012
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Even when AI operates at the level of recommendation rather than direct action, the mere presence of an algorithmic suggestion can systematically shift human judgment toward the algorithm's conclusion, a phenomenon known as automation bias (Goddard, Roudsari, and Wyatt 2012;Alon-Barkat and Busuioc 2023).”
From Limits of Interventions in AI-Assisted Decision Making (2026) · cites this paper as Goddard, Roudsari, and Wyatt 2012
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Human involvement therefore does not necessarily guarantee effective control (Goddard et al. 2012).”
From When Recruiters Meet Algorithms: Advice Taking and Bias in AI‐Assisted Recruitment (2026) · cites this paper as Goddard et al. 2012
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This tendency is consistent with automation bias, in which people overrely on automated recommendations and accept them without sufficient independent verification (Goddard et al., 2012).”
From Think Before You Accept: Can Written Justification Reduce Uncritical Uptake of AI Writing Suggestions? (2026) · cites this paper as Goddard et al., 2012
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“All had previously passed our standard psychological screener [30].”
From Progressive Disclosure: When, Why, and How Do Users Want Algorithmic Transparency Information? (2020) · cites this paper as [30]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“Automation bias can occur in busy clinical settings where clinicians may feel pressure to make rapid decisions, leading them to rely on AI-generated results as a shortcut rather than engaging in thorough analysis.44”
From Bias in artificial intelligence for medical imaging: fundamentals, detection, avoidance, mitigation, challenges, ethics, and prospects (2024) · cites this paper as [44]
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
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
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
Garg, A. X., Adhikari, N. K. J., McDonald, H., Rosas-Arellano, M. P., Devereaux, P. J., Beyene, J., Sam, J., & Haynes, R. B. (2005) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.293.10.1223 · Cited by 2,936
Role of Computerized Physician Order Entry Systems in Facilitating Medication Errors
Koppel, R. (2005) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.293.10.1197 · Cited by 2,126
The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis
Jüni, P. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.11.1054 · Cited by 1,981
Complacency and Bias in Human Use of Automation: An Attentional Integration
Parasuraman, R., & Manzey, D. H. (2010) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720810376055 · Cited by 1,710
Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems
LEE, J., & MORAY, N. (1992) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139208967392 · Cited by 1,459
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Wyatt J . Lessons learned from the field trial of ACORN, an expert system to advise on chest pain. In: Barber B Cao D Qin D , eds. Proc. Sixth World Conference on Medical Informatics, Singapore. Amsterdam: North Holland, 1989:111–15.
- Prinzel LJ Freeman FG Prinzel HD . Individual differences in complacency and monitoring for automation failures. Individual Differences Research 2005;3:27–49.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–300 of 1,008
Jain, S. S., Goto, S., Hall, J. L., Khan, S. S., MacRae, C. A., Ofori, C., Pegus, C., Pencina, M., Peterson, E. D., Schwamm, L. H., et al. (2025) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0000000000001400 · Cited by 23
Trust and Transparency in Machine Learning-Based Clinical Decision Support
Gretton, C. (2018) · Human–Computer Interaction Series · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-90403-0_14 · Cited by 27
“Computer says no”: Algorithmic decision support and organisational responsibility
Adensamer, A., Gsenger, R., & Klausner, L. D. (2021) · Journal of Responsible Technology · doi:10.1016/j.jrt.2021.100014 · Cited by 32
Torkamaan, H., Steinert, S., Pera, M. S., Kudina, O., Freire, S. K., Verma, H., Kelly, S., Sekwenz, M.-T., Yang, J., van Nunen, K., et al. (2024) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2024.2431068 · Cited by 31
Cognitive analysis in sports: Supporting match analysis and scouting through artificial intelligence
Pavitt, J., Braines, D., & Tomsett, R. (2021) · Applied AI Letters · doi:10.1002/ail2.21 · Cited by 25
Han, J., & Ko, D. (2025) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs15040534 · Cited by 39
“Similarly, the limited impact of feedback suggests that users may not feel a greater sense of autonomy unless they perceive their input as directly shaping AI-generated outcomes (Goddard et al., 2012).”
InfluentialMéndez, G. G., Galárraga, L. A., & Chiluiza, K. (2021) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445718 · Cited by 29
Brady, A. P., Allen, B., Chong, J., Kotter, E., Kottler, N. E., Mongan, J., Oakden‐Rayner, L., dos Santos, D. P., Tang, A., Wald, C., et al. (2024) · Journal of the American College of Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2023.12.005 · Cited by 29
Clinical prediction models using machine learning in oncology: challenges and recommendations
Collins, G. S., Chester-Jones, M., Gerry, S., Ma, J., Matos, J., Sehjal, J., Tsegaye, B., & Dhiman, P. (2025) · BMJ Oncology · doi:10.1136/bmjonc-2025-000914 · Cited by 27
Evaluation and Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Medical Devices for Clinical Decision Support
Weissman, G. E. (2025) · Annual Review of Biomedical Data Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-biodatasci-103123-095824 · Cited by 31
Rosbach, E., Ganz, J., Ammeling, J., Riener, A., & Aubreville, M. (2025) · Informatik aktuell · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-47422-5_27 · Cited by 23
Giebel, G. D., Raszke, P., Nowak, H., Palmowski, L., Adamzik, M., Heinz, P., Tokic, M. C., Timmesfeld, N., Brunkhorst, F. M., Wasem, J., et al. (2025) · JMIR Medical Informatics · doi:10.2196/69688 · Cited by 31
Students’ Reliance on AI in Higher Education: Identifying Contributing Factors
Pitts, G., Rani, N., Mildort, W., & Cook, E.-M. (2026) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-12773-0_9 · Cited by 64
Stressed decision makers and use of decision aids: a literature review and conceptual model
Adya, M., & Phillips-Wren, G. E. (2019) · Information Technology and People · doi:10.1108/itp-04-2019-0194 · Cited by 23
Tian, L., Oviatt, S. L., Muszyński, M., Chamberlain, B. C., Healey, J., & Sano, A. (2022) · ACM eBooks · doi:10.1145/3502398 · Cited by 25
Reflections on Automation Complacency
Liu, P. (2023) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2023.2265240 · Cited by 23
“However, there is a lack of empirical justification for this appealing assertion (Goddard et al., 2012).”
Influentialde Vreede, M. A. V., McGrath, A., & de Clifford, J. (2018) · Australian Health Review · doi:10.1071/ah17119 · Cited by 23
Automation complacency: risks of abdicating medical decision making
Saadeh, M., Janhonen, J., Beer, E., Castelyn, C., & Hoffman, D. N. (2025) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-025-00825-2 · Cited by 26
“Therefore, it is possible to mitigate automation complacency by increasing user accountability, improving worksite conditions, or decreasing cognitive demand without attempting to some-how cancel our innate automation bias [15].”
Nanua, S., Steward, R., Neely, B., Datto, M., & Youens, K. E. (2025) · Journal of Pathology Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jpi.2025.100520 · Cited by 23
Harada, T., Shimizu, T., Kaji, Y., Suyama, Y., Matsumoto, T., 小坂, 鎮., Shimizu, H., Nei, T., & Watanuki, S. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17176110 · Cited by 23
“also described that overreliance on decision support may reduce clinicians’ independent judgment and critical thinking [11].”
BackgroundAutomation complacency on the road
Chu, Y., & Liu, P. (2023) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139.2023.2210793 · Cited by 22
“It lacks consensus over what really it is (Goddard, Roudsari, and Wyatt 2012).”
BackgroundSmart tattoo: technology for monitoring blood glucose in the future
Meetoo, D. D., Wong, L., & Ochieng, B. M. N. (2019) · British Journal of Nursing · doi:10.12968/bjon.2019.28.2.110 · Cited by 22
Pütten, A. M. R.-V. D., & Sach, A. (2024) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1416504 · Cited by 28
Tavakoli, N., Abad, Z. S. H., Gowda, V., Samsel, K., Bedayat, A., Ghasemiesfe, A., Bağcı, U., Hsiao, A., Leiner, T., Carr, J., et al. (2025) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.242961 · Cited by 29
Human-AI teaming in healthcare: 1 + 1 > 2?
Liu, P., Zhang, J., Chen, S., & Chen, S. (2025) · npj Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s44387-025-00052-4 · Cited by 26
Ploug, T., & Holm, S. (2023) · Bioethics · doi:10.1111/bioe.13124 · Cited by 20
Human–machine collaboration for enhanced decision-making in governance
Rooy, D. V. (2024) · Data & Policy · doi:10.1017/dap.2024.72 · Cited by 22
“Post-decision analysis and critical questioning prompts can be employed to encourage reflective thinking (Goddard et al., 2012; Lyell and Coiera, 2017).”
Brunyé, T. T., Mitroff, S. R., & Elmore, J. G. (2025) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocaf123 · Cited by 22
Human preferences toward algorithmic advice in a word association task
Bogert, E., Lauharatanahirun, N., & Schecter, A. (2022) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-18638-2 · Cited by 26
“While it is not clear if advice from an algorithm functions differently, prior work has demonstrated a consistent automation bias among humans using intelligent systems, leading to significant complacency 25–28 .”
BackgroundMorris, A. H., Horvat, C. M., Stagg, B. C., Grainger, D. W., Lanspa, M. J., Orme, J. F., Clemmer, T. P., Weaver, L. K., Thomas, F. O., Grissom, C. K., et al. (2022) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocac143 · Cited by 21
Heterogeneity in Algorithm-Assisted Decision-Making: A Case Study in Child Abuse Hotline Screening
Cheng, L., & Chouldechova, A. (2022) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3555101 · Cited by 23
Herrmann-Werner, A., Holderried, M., Loda, T., Malek, N., Zipfel, S., & Holderried, F. (2019) · JMIR Medical Informatics · doi:10.2196/12648 · Cited by 20
“there is certainly the need for more standardized examinations on that matter [44-46].”
BackgroundKucybała, I., Tabor, Z., Polak, J., Urbanik, A., & Wojciechowski, W. (2020) · Rheumatology International · doi:10.1007/s00296-020-04511-w · Cited by 20
Nee, J., Smith, G. M., Sheares, A. M., & Rustagi, I. (2021) · ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization (EAAMO) · doi:10.1145/3465416.3483301 · Cited by 20
“The notion that algorithms, and thus NLP tools, are unbiased is inaccurate and indicative of “automation bias,” or the over-reliance and over-acceptance of suggestions from automated systems [37].”
BackgroundHeterogeneity in Algorithm-Assisted Decision-Making: A Case Study in Child Abuse Hotline Screening
Cheng, L., & Chouldechova, A. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2204.05478 · Cited by 20
Yoon, S., Goh, H., Lee, P. C., Tan, H. C., Teh, M. M., Lim, D. S. T., Kwee, A. K., CHANDRAN, S. R., Carmody, D., Swee, D. S., et al. (2024) · JMIR Human Factors · doi:10.2196/50939 · Cited by 18
“As with the literature, clinicians in our study cautioned against being overly reliant on the APA tool, as occasional erroneous recommendations generated by the systems might prompt users to override a correct decision they have already made [26,37].”
ResultVrdoljak, J., Boban, Z., Maleš, I., Škrabić, R., Kumrić, M., Ottosen, A., Clemencau, A., Božić, J., & Völker, S. (2025) · Computers in Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2025.110351 · Cited by 23
Examining human reliance on artificial intelligence in decision making
Pearson, J., Dror, I. E., Jayes, E., Whordley, G.-R., Mason, G., & Nightingale, S. J. (2026) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-026-34983-y · Cited by 23
“much work has focused on the aviation sector, concerns about automation bias extend to other domains such as healthcare and military, especially with the relatively recent move to embed AI systems within these areas to assist human decision making 12,13 .”
Who's really in the loop? Rethinking oversight in AI-assisted health care
Abulibdeh, R., Agyemang, G. O., Celi, L. A., Gorijavolu, R., Kalema, N. L., Kleinlein, R., Madapati, K., Salarikia, S. R., & Youssef, A. (2026) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(26)00204-7 · Cited by 23
The Externalities of Exploration and How Data Diversity Helps Exploitation
Raghavan, M. (2023) · ACM eBooks · doi:10.1145/3603195.3603208 · Cited by 20
Lacroux, A., & Martin‐Lacroux, C. (2021) · Management & Avenir · doi:10.3917/mav.122.0121 · Cited by 32
Vélez‐Díaz‐Pallarés, M., Álvarez‐Díaz, A. M., Gramage, T., Oliveros, N. V., Delgado‐Silveira, E., García, M. M., Cruz-Jentoft, A. J., & Bermejo-Vicedo, T. (2017) · International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy · doi:10.1007/s11096-017-0474-y · Cited by 22
Reduced Verification of Medication Alerts Increases Prescribing Errors
Lyell, D., Magrabi, F., & Coiera, E. W. (2019) · Applied Clinical Informatics · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1677009 · Cited by 19
Calibrating Reliance on Automated Advice: Transparency and Trust Calibration Feedback
Tatasciore, M., & Loft, S. (2025) · International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2025.2487861 · Cited by 20
“…bias can occur in both novices and experts (Mosier et al., 1992; Skitka et al., 1999), novices tend to exhibit greater reliance (potential automation bias) than experts who typically would have greater familiarity with baseline automation reliability and context (e.g., Goddard et al., 2012).”
Teng, D., Tan, L., Cao, Q., Xia, Y., Zhang, N., Li, J., & Zhao, D. (2026) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-026-02547-z · Cited by 18
Staszkiewicz, P., Horobiowski, J., Szelągowska, A., & Strzelecka, A. M. (2024) · Meditari Accountancy Research · doi:10.1108/medar-10-2023-2204 · Cited by 29
Artificial intelligence machines as relational nonhuman actors in entrepreneurial teams
Murtinu, S., & Massis, A. D. (2025) · Journal of Small Business Management · doi:10.1080/00472778.2025.2461031 · Cited by 18
“Thus, entrepreneurial teams should avoid falling into the so called “automation bias” (Goddard et al., 2012), that is, the over-reliance of decisions on AI machines.”
Mori, Y., Kopylov, U., Sinonquel, P., Ebigbo, A., Dekker, E., de Groof, A. J., Ahmad, O. F., Kader, R., Săftoiu, A., Schoon, E. J., et al. (2025) · Endoscopy · doi:10.1055/a-2742-4342 · Cited by 19
A network analysis of decision strategies of human experts in steel manufacturing
Merten, D. C., Hütt, M. ‐., & Uygun, Y. (2022) · Computers & Industrial Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.cie.2022.108120 · Cited by 18
Computational Measures of Deceptive Language: Prospects and Issues
Tomas, F., Dodier, O., & Demarchi, S. (2022) · Frontiers in Communication · doi:10.3389/fcomm.2022.792378 · Cited by 21
Informing a position statement on the use of artificial intelligence in dermatology in Australia
Caffery, L. J., Janda, M., Miller, R. E., Abbott, L. M., Arnold, C., Caccetta, T. P., Guitera, P., Shumack, S. P., Fernández‐Peñas, P., Mar, V., et al. (2022) · Australasian Journal of Dermatology · doi:10.1111/ajd.13946 · Cited by 18
“18 Continual monitoring of the output of the AI model is one strategy to reduce automation bias.”
MethodSelection Problems in the Presence of Implicit Bias
Raghavan, M. (2023) · ACM eBooks · doi:10.1145/3603195.3603209 · Cited by 21
Rosbach, E., Ammeling, J., Krügel, S., Kießig, A., Fritz, A., Ganz, J., Puget, C., Donovan, T., Klang, A., Köller, M. C., et al. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3713319 · Cited by 18
Schemmer, M., Kühl, N., & Satzger, G. (2022) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.24251/hicss.2022.185 · Cited by 18
The Potential Application of Large Language Models in Pharmaceutical Supply Chain Management
Aguero, D., & Nelson, S. D. (2024) · The Journal of Pediatric Pharmacology and Therapeutics · doi:10.5863/1551-6776-29.2.200 · Cited by 17
An interdisciplinary perspective on AI-supported decision making in medicine
Ammeling, J., Aubreville, M., Fritz, A., Kießig, A., Krügel, S., & Uhl, M. (2024) · Technology in Society · doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102791 · Cited by 20
Vocational Education and Training in the Age of Digitization
Wuttke, E., Seifried, J., Niegemann, H. M., Ifenthaler, D., Rugel, D., Lachmann, T., Siegfried, C., Hermkes, R., Fischer, S., & Barabasch, A. (2020) · Verlag Barbara Budrich eBooks · doi:10.3224/84742432 · Cited by 51
Machine Learning for Clinical Decision-Making: Challenges and OpportunitiesPreprint
Sanchez‐Martinez, S., Cámara, Ó., Piella, G., Čikeš, M., Ballester, M. Á. G., Miron, M., Vellido, A., Gómez, E., Fraser, A. G., & Bijnens, B. H. (2019) · Preprints.org · doi:10.20944/preprints201911.0278.v1 · Cited by 17
High-risk artificial intelligence
Sunyaev, A., Benlian, A., Pfeiffer, J., Jussupow, E., Thiebes, S., Maedche, A., & Gawlitza, J. (2025) · Business & Information Systems Engineering · doi:10.1007/s12599-025-00942-6 · Cited by 16
“The EU AI Act explicitly acknowl-edges that humans should remain aware of potential cognitive risks when working with AI systems, especially the risk of over-relying on the system’s output and overlooking system errors as a result – i.e., automation bias (Goddard et al. 2012).”
Find the Good. Seek the Unity: A Hidden Markov Model of Human-AI Delegation Dynamics
Liu, J., Yue, W. T., Leung, A. C. M., & Zhang, X. (2022) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2024/18232 · Cited by 16
Cognitive Atrophy Paradox of AI–Human Interaction: From Cognitive Growth and Atrophy to Balance
Kabashkin, I. (2025) · Information · doi:10.3390/info16111009 · Cited by 34
“For instance, in clinical decision support systems, clinicians have been shown to accept incorrect recommendations from automated tools without additional checks, thereby increasing risk [20].”
The application of AI in digital HRM – an experiment on human decision-making in personnel selection
Malin, C. D., Fleiß, J., Seeber, I., Kubicek, B., Kupfer, C., & Thalmann, S. (2024) · Business Process Management Journal · doi:10.1108/bpmj-11-2023-0884 · Cited by 21
“Especially when using such automated systems, decision-makers tend to trust them excessively regarding reliability (Lee and See, 2004) and accept automated recommendations without questioning them, which can reduce selection quality (Goddard et al. , 2012).”
“Don’t let me be misunderstood”
Strauß, S. (2021) · TATuP - Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Praxis · doi:10.14512/tatup.30.3.44 · Cited by 16
Brauner, P., & Ziefle, M. (2019) · IEEE International Conference on Industrial Informatics (INDIN) · doi:10.1109/indin41052.2019.8972142 · Cited by 16
“This relates to the concepts of automation biases and automation complacency: The inclination to over-rely on automation is referred to as automation bias whereas the (overlapping) concept of complacency rather refers to the attention related insufficient monitoring of the automation output [2], [4].”
BackgroundDogru, E. Ö., & Krämer, N. C. (2025) · Journal of Decision Systems · doi:10.1080/12460125.2025.2593251 · Cited by 15
“In the conclusion of their systematic review, Goddard et al. (2012) propose that expertise may act on primary drivers to influence reliance on DSS, with those primary drivers being trust and confidence, again emphasising that expertise likely plays an indirect role on reliance behaviour.”
InfluentialReal-World Monitoring of Artificial Intelligence in Radiology: Challenges and Best Practices
Dean, G., Montañà, E., Kyriazi, S., Shelmerdine, S. C., Buckens, C. F. M., Agrell, H., Ranschaert, E. R., Marušić, A., Davies, G. J., Wardle, P., et al. (2025) · Korean Journal of Radiology · doi:10.3348/kjr.2025.0962 · Cited by 15
“For instance, automation bias may lead to an overreliance on AI outputs at the expense of independent clinical judgment, whereas an unwarranted distrust of AI can impede workflow efficiency and limit the potential benefits of the technology [27].”
Kiraly, A. P., Cunningham, C. A., Najafi, R., Nabulsi, Z., Yang, J., Lau, C. T., Ledsam, J. R., Ye, W., Ardila, D., McKinney, S. M., et al. (2024) · Radiology Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1148/ryai.230079 · Cited by 19
Human-AI cognitive teaming: using AI to support state-level decision making on the resort to force
Vold, K. (2024) · Australian Journal Of International Affairs · doi:10.1080/10357718.2024.2327383 · Cited by 15
“2021; Gallagher, Mastrogiorgio, and Petracca 2019; Goddard, Roudsari, and Wyatt 2012; Shin et al .”
BackgroundAI Accidents: An Emerging Threat
Arnold, Z., & Toner, H. (2021) · doi:10.51593/20200072 · Cited by 15
Stuart, F., Riley, A., & Pourreza, H. (2020) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0236625 · Cited by 13
“This dilemma is compounded by the use of automated search methods, which often lack the capacity to process nuanced meanings and context-laden content, and run the risk of creating “automation bias” [46].”
BackgroundLiel, Y., & Zalmanson, L. (2025) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2025.2561390 · Cited by 14
“Second, attentional limitations lead to overlooking algorithmic errors due to reduced vigilance or cognitive effort in supervising automated systems [37].”
Knoery, C., Bond, R., Iftikhar, A., Rjoob, K. W. Y., McGilligan, V., Peace, A. J., Heaton, J., & Leslie, S. J. (2019) · Journal of Electrocardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2019.08.006 · Cited by 14
“These computer-generated diagnoses have been proven to strongly influence the clinicians’ final ECG diagnosis[8,9].”
BackgroundAlgorithm Reliance: Fast and Slow
Snyder, C., Keppler, S. M., & Leider, S. (2025) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2023.01989 · Cited by 24
Theoretical, Measured, and Subjective Responsibility in Aided Decision Making
Douer, N., & Meyer, J. (2021) · ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1145/3425732 · Cited by 19
Zanello, M., Carron, R., Peeters, S., Gori, P., Roux, A., Isabelle Bloch, A., Oppenheim, C., & Pallud, J. (2020) · Neurosurgical Review · doi:10.1007/s10143-020-01315-1 · Cited by 14
Health IT for Patient Safety and Improving the Safety of Health IT
Magrabi, F., Mei-Sing, O., & Coiera, E. W. (2016) · Studies in health technology and informatics · doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-635-4-25 · Cited by 16
Automation Bias in Large Language Model Assisted Diagnostic Reasoning Among AI-Trained Physicians
Qazi, I. A., Ali, A., Khawaja, A. U., Akhtar, M. J., Sheikh, A. Z., & Alizai, M. H. (2025) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2025.08.23.25334280 · Cited by 16
Crombé, A., Bourillon, C., Chaillou, S., Bechet, C., Dupont, J., Bône, A., Verchère, F. L.-D., Luciani, A., Bellin, M., Aubé, C., et al. (2025) · Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging · doi:10.1016/j.diii.2025.12.002 · Cited by 13
Reimagining psychiatric care with agentic AI: promise, challenges, and a roadmap forward
Sharma, D., Meshkat, S., Perivolaris, A., Kamaleddin, M. A., Teferra, B. G., Rueda, A., Samavi, R., Jetly, R., Mago, V., Wu, Y., et al. (2026) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-026-02453-4 · Cited by 17
“Importantly, human oversight does not by itself prevent automation bias 15,16 ; its effectiveness depends on interaction design choices such as review timing, information granularity, framing, and override mechanisms 17,18 .”
Who Wrote this? How Smart Replies Impact Language and Agency in the Workplace
Wenker, K. (2022) · Telematics and Informatics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.teler.2023.100062 · Cited by 17
“Both terms coin the tendency to shed responsibility for communication, either as an attention allocation strategy or as a tendency to over-rely on automation (see [34] for a review).”
BackgroundARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) BIAS IMPACTS: CLASSIFICATION FRAMEWORK FOR EFFECTIVE MITIGATION
(2023) · Issues in Information Systems · doi:10.48009/4_iis_2023_128 · Cited by 21
Lester, C. A., Rowell, B. E., Zheng, Y., Co, Z., Marshall, V. D., Kim, J. Y., Chen, Q., Kontar, R. A., & Yang, X. J. (2025) · JMIR Medical Informatics · doi:10.2196/64902 · Cited by 13
“In addition to transparency, automation bias and aversion must be considered when developing CDSS. Automation bias occurs when users forsake their own expertise in favor of the AI’s advice [12,14].”
Starke, S. D., & Baber, C. (2020) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103102 · Cited by 13
The Electronic Medical Record and Nephrology Fellowship Education in the United States
Yuan, C. M., Little, D. J., Marks, E. S., Watson, M. A., Raghavan, R., & Nee, R. (2020) · Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology · doi:10.2215/cjn.14191119 · Cited by 14
Explainable activity recognition in videos: Lessons learned
Roy, C., Nourani, M., Honeycutt, D. R., Block, J. E., Rahman, T., Ragan, E. D., Ruozzi, N., & Gogate, V. (2021) · Applied AI Letters · doi:10.1002/ail2.59 · Cited by 13
“Since the with explanations category also had significantly better performance results, this suggests that the higher rate of agreement was not simply blind trust or automation bias , 58 where humans tend to trust an intelligent system by virtue of its “ intelligence ” alone.”
BackgroundThe literacy paradox: How AI literacy amplifies biases in evaluating AI-generated news articles
Kim, W., & Ryoo, Y. (2025) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2025.102992 · Cited by 18
Knowing (Not) to Know: Explainable Artificial Intelligence and Human Metacognition
von Zahn, M., Liebich, L., Jussupow, E., Hinz, O. F., & Bauer, K. (2025) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2024.1431 · Cited by 21
Bias and Oversight in Clinical AI: A Review of Decision Support Tools and Equity Frameworks
Adegunle, F., Chhatwal, K., Arab, S., Alabdaljabar, M. S., Raslan, M. A., Sayed, O., & Goldsweig, A. M. (2026) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-026-10229-5 · Cited by 13
“Automation bias occurs when professionals defer to model outputs, even against their better judgement 69,70 .”
To Err is (only) Human. Reflections on How to Move from Accuracy to Trust for Medical AI
Cabitza, F., Campagner, A., & Datteri, E. (2021) · Lecture notes in information systems and organisation · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-87842-9_4 · Cited by 12
AI and bureaucratic discretion
Vredenburgh, K. (2023) · Inquiry · doi:10.1080/0020174x.2023.2261468 · Cited by 13
Early Warning Systems for Critical Illness Outside the Intensive Care Unit
Henry, K. E., & Giannini, H. M. (2024) · Critical Care Clinics · doi:10.1016/j.ccc.2024.03.007 · Cited by 13
Rasmussen, M. E., Akbarov, K., Titovich, E., Nijkamp, J. A., van Elmpt, W., Primdahl, H., Lassen, P., Cacicedo, J., Cordero-Mendez, L., Uddin, A. F. M. K., et al. (2024) · JCO Global Oncology · doi:10.1200/go.24.00173 · Cited by 14
“37 The fact that two thirds of participants handed in all the accepted-as-is-contours suggests either that automation bias was at play for these participants or that these participants might have cognitively processed the review of AI contours differently.”
BackgroundSchickore, J. (2024) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009348966 · Cited by 11
Haines, S., Savic, M., Nielsen, S., & Carter, A. (2021) · International Journal of Drug Policy · doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103549 · Cited by 12
Fairness and Ethics in Artificial Intelligence-Based Medical Imaging
Tripathi, S., & Musiolik, T. H. (2022) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-6684-7544-7.ch005 · Cited by 13
Taking the help or going alone: ChatGPT and class assignmentsPreprint
Hill, B. (2023) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/n8wf7 · Cited by 12
AI-overdependence and human cognitive decline: Hazards, evidence, and mitigation strategies
Noorbehbahani, F., & Oyibo, K. (2026) · Computers in Human Behavior Reports · doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2026.101102 · Cited by 12
Kirpalani, A., Grimmer, J., & Wang, P. Z. T. (2025) · Medical Science Educator · doi:10.1007/s40670-025-02289-9 · Cited by 11
“Such reliance on AI-generated information without sufficient scrutiny can reduce opportunities for deeper cognitive engagement and critical thinking [6].”
Cabitza, F., Famiglini, L., Fregosi, C., Pe, S., Parimbelli, E., La Maida, G. A., & Gallazzi, E. (2025) · Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3708359.3712157 · Cited by 11
“This phenomenon is a case of automation bias, but it differs substantially from the well-documented instances in the literature [22, 43].”
Liu, C., Zheng, J., Liu, Y., Wang, X., Zhang, Y., Yu, W., Yu, W., Yu, T., Jiang, W., Wang, D., et al. (2025) · International Journal for Equity in Health · doi:10.1186/s12939-025-02581-5 · Cited by 11
“Additionally, since LLMs are used to generate simulated clinical data for training other models [37], these biases could be perpetuated and amplified, leading to automated biased information that affects clinical decision-making and exacerbates health inequalities [38].”
Metadata
- Authors
- Goddard, K., Roudsari, A., & Wyatt, J. C.
- Affiliations
- City, University of London (GB)
- University of Warwick (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Goddard, Kate
- Venue
- Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2012-01
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 121-127
- ISSN
- 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-974X
- PMC
- PMC3240751
- OpenAlex
- W2281090488
- Cited by
- 1,162
- References
- 77
- Citations by year
- 2026: 513 · 2025: 180 · 2024: 111 · 2023: 88 · 2022: 78 · 2021: 61 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 0.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Keywords
- automation bias, clinical decision support systems, human-automation interaction, over-reliance on automation, trust in automation, cognitive style, workload, task complexity, time constraints, user accountability, DSS design, clinical decision-making
- MeSH terms
- Attitude to Computers, Automation, Aviation, Humans, Task Performance and Analysis, Decision Support Systems, Clinical
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
