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 701–800 of 1,008
Data to Information: Computational Models and Analytic Methods
Visweswaran, S., & Tajgardoon, M. (2021) · Health informatics · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-70558-9_10
Future of Affective Computing and Applied Affective Computing
Tian, L., Oviatt, S. L., Muszyński, M., Chamberlain, B. C., Healey, J., & Sano, A. (2022) · ACM eBooks · doi:10.1145/3502398.3502411 · Cited by 1
Multimodal Data Collection and Processing for Applied Affective Computing
Tian, L., Oviatt, S. L., Muszyński, M., Chamberlain, B. C., Healey, J., & Sano, A. (2022) · ACM eBooks · doi:10.1145/3502398.3502403
Tian, L., Oviatt, S. L., Muszyński, M., Chamberlain, B. C., Healey, J., & Sano, A. (2022) · ACM eBooks · doi:10.1145/3502398.3502399
Tian, L., Oviatt, S. L., Muszyński, M., Chamberlain, B. C., Healey, J., & Sano, A. (2022) · ACM eBooks · doi:10.1145/3502398.3502412
Tian, L., Oviatt, S. L., Muszyński, M., Chamberlain, B. C., Healey, J., & Sano, A. (2022) · ACM eBooks · doi:10.1145/3502398.3502413
Applied Affective Computing in Built Environments
Tian, L., Oviatt, S. L., Muszyński, M., Chamberlain, B. C., Healey, J., & Sano, A. (2022) · ACM eBooks · doi:10.1145/3502398.3502409
Machine Learning Approaches for Applied Affective Computing
Tian, L., Oviatt, S. L., Muszyński, M., Chamberlain, B. C., Healey, J., & Sano, A. (2022) · ACM eBooks · doi:10.1145/3502398.3502402
Affective Computing for Enhancing Well-Being
Tian, L., Oviatt, S. L., Muszyński, M., Chamberlain, B. C., Healey, J., & Sano, A. (2022) · ACM eBooks · doi:10.1145/3502398.3502408 · Cited by 1
Synthesizing Natural and Believable Emotional Expressions
Tian, L., Oviatt, S. L., Muszyński, M., Chamberlain, B. C., Healey, J., & Sano, A. (2022) · ACM eBooks · doi:10.1145/3502398.3502406
Addressing Ethical Issues of Affective Computing
Tian, L., Oviatt, S. L., Muszyński, M., Chamberlain, B. C., Healey, J., & Sano, A. (2022) · ACM eBooks · doi:10.1145/3502398.3502410
Emotions as Studied in Psychology and Cognitive Science
Tian, L., Oviatt, S. L., Muszyński, M., Chamberlain, B. C., Healey, J., & Sano, A. (2022) · ACM eBooks · doi:10.1145/3502398.3502401
Precision Medicine in the Context of Artificial IntelligencePreprint
Rayan, R. Α. (2019) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.31219/osf.io/cbd7a
Kröplin, J., Huber, T., Geis, C., Braun, B. J., & Fritz, T. (2021) · doi:10.2196/preprints.30289
(2016) · Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Research · doi:10.1002/jppr.1297
Moore, C., & Murphy, A. (2019) · Radiopaedia.org · doi:10.53347/rid-70108
Human Collaboration with Advanced Vehicle Technologies: Challenges for Older Adults
Sharit, J., Souders, D. J., & Charness, N. H. (2022) · Automation, collaboration, and e-services · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-10784-9_4
Augmented Collective Intelligence in Collaborative Ideation: Agenda and ChallengesPreprint
Dardaman, E., & Gupta, A. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.18010
“Finally, experimenting with disclosing or not disclosing the presence of chatbots to the humans in the ideation can be used to test for automation bias [17] and algorithm aversion bias [18] and how those impact ACI.”
BackgroundNurses’ Overreliance on Fallible Technology
Harrington, L. (2023) · AACN Advanced Critical Care · doi:10.4037/aacnacc2023526
9 KI-gestützte Entscheidungsunterstützungssysteme im Gesundheitswesen
Gaube, S., & Lermer, E. (2023) · De Gruyter eBooks · doi:10.1515/9783111034706-009 · Cited by 1
Trends in Explainable Artificial Intelligence for Non-Experts
Özalp, E., Hartwig, K., & Reuter, C. (2023) · AI critique · doi:10.1515/9783839457320-010 · Cited by 2
Raghavan, M. (2023) · ACM eBooks · doi:10.1145/3603195.3603213
Raghavan, M. (2023) · ACM eBooks · doi:10.1145/3603195.3603205
Raghavan, M. (2023) · ACM eBooks · doi:10.1145/3603195.3603196
How Do Classifiers Induce Agents to Behave Strategically?
Raghavan, M. (2023) · ACM eBooks · doi:10.1145/3603195.3603201
How Do Classifiers Induce Agents to Behave Strategically?
Raghavan, M. (2023) · ACM eBooks · doi:10.1145/3603195.3603210
Raghavan, M. (2023) · ACM eBooks · doi:10.1145/3603195.3603214
Smith, M. W., Kalsy, M., Weir, C. R., Brown, C. R., Virani, S. S., & Garvin, J. H. (2023) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/21695067231192614
The synergy of AI and clinical paramedic expertise
Frankland, J. (2024) · International Paramedic Practice · doi:10.12968/ippr.2026.0002
Rubeis, G. (2024) · The International library of ethics, law and technology · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-55744-6_5
Sakamoto, T., Harada, Y., & Shimizu, T. (2024) · doi:10.2196/preprints.58666
RETRACTED: Algorithmic Bias: An Integrative Review and Scope for Future ResearchPreprint
Chaudhary, A. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4775268/v1 · Cited by 3
RetractedExamining the Effectiveness of Speech and Earcon Alerts for Aiding Phishing Email Detection
Zhang, Y. “., Berger, L., & Chen, J. (2024) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/10711813241275518
“Past literature has repeatedly found evidence for automation bias, which is the tendency to favor suggestions made by automated systems despite an absence of evidence (Skitka et al., 1999; Goddard et al., 2012).”
Ethik der künstlichen Intelligenz in der Medizin
Giovanni Maio, M. A. (2024) · Diabetes aktuell · doi:10.1055/a-2369-9377
Assessing the Impact of Differing Perspectives in Advice-Taking BehaviorPreprint
Kumar, A., Tham, R.-H. M., & Steyvers, M. (2024) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/seqjr
Taddeo, M. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197745441.002.0008
Taking a Moral Gambit: Accepting Moral Responsibility for the Actions of Autonomous Weapons Systems
Taddeo, M. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197745441.003.0007
Taddeo, M. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197745441.002.0007
Adversarial and Non-kinetic Uses of AI: Conceptual and Ethical Challenges
Taddeo, M. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197745441.003.0004
Taddeo, M. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197745441.002.0003
Adversarial and Kinetic Uses of AI: The Definition of Autonomous Weapon Systems
Taddeo, M. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197745441.003.0006 · Cited by 1
Adversarial and Non-kinetic Uses: The Case of Artificial Intelligence for Cyber Deterrence
Taddeo, M. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197745441.003.0005
Sustainment and Support Uses of AI in Defence: The Case of AI-Augmented Intelligence Analysis
Taddeo, M. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197745441.003.0003
Ethical Principles for AI in Defence
Taddeo, M. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197745441.003.0002
Taddeo, M. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197745441.002.0005
Entscheidungsunterstützungssysteme – der Weg zu mehr Evidenz am Patientenbett?
Kücking, F. (2025) · intensiv · doi:10.1055/a-2442-4985
Schoeffer, J., De‐Arteaga, M., & Kühl, N. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5029746
Mehta, S., Haddad, E. N., Bhavsar‐Burke, I., Majors, A. K., Maeda, R. K., Burke, S. M., Deshpande, A., Nowacki, A. S., Lindenmeyer, C. C., & Mehta, N. (2025) · doi:10.2196/preprints.72034
Smuha, N. A. (2025) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009367783.016
Designing Human-Automation Redundancy: Overreliance, Automation Shirking, and the Operator’s Dilemma
Cohen, D., Roth, Y., Rieskamp, J., & Schöbel, M. (2025) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5098488
The Misleading Power of AI-Powered Automation
Şen, A. (2025) · Özgür Yayınları eBooks · doi:10.58830/ozgur.pub710.c3023
Evaluating the Impact of a Ki-67 Decision Support Algorithm on Pathology Residents’ Scoring Accuracy
Aygün, M. İ. Ş., Yalçın, Ö., Uzel, B., Kulduk, G., & Çomunoğlu, C. (2025) · Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine · doi:10.1007/s10278-025-01490-x
Errors and Pitfalls in Radiographic Interpretation
Cohen, E. B. (2025) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-93235-6.00007-9
Chen, P., Hung, Y.-C., Horng, J., & Wu, L.-C. (2025) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-4589-3_17
Leffrang, D. (2025) · Lecture notes in information systems and organisation · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-80119-8_12
Naming And Blaming Automated Decision-Making Systems: Analysis Of Contesting Algorithmic Injustice
Gules-Guctas, E. (2023) · Scholars Archive - University at Albany (University at Albany, State University of New York) · doi:10.54014/ybg8-z8sd
Vicente, L., & Cabitza, F. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-93838-2_5 · Cited by 1
The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Backing Up Human Insight: A Powerful Partnership
Kim, H., & Lee, H. S. (2025) · MechEcology · doi:10.23104/me.e7
Anene, J. I., Sharma, A., Sharma, A., Fatima, I., Kancherla, N., Ponnada, S. C., Ravuru, S. K., Thymalil, C., Rajeshwara, S., Chauhan, A., et al. (2025) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.86614
“For instance, studies have documented that clinicians may defer excessively to AI-generated outputs, especially under cognitive load, leading to automation bias and reduced diagnostic vigilance [53].”
The Promise and Challenges of CAD ‐Assisted Diagnosis in Achalasia
Muwanwella, N., & Ragunath, K. (2025) · Digestive Endoscopy · doi:10.1111/den.15076
“This phenomenon, called automation bias (AB) was initially investigated in the aviation sector [4].”
Evaluating the Influence of Demographic Identity in the Medical Use of Large Language ModelsPreprint
Lee, S., Cho, W. I., Park, C., Lee, Y., Park, C., & Ko, T. (2025) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2025.07.09.25331072
Cleverly, C. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5359277
Azeroual, O. (2025) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-5097-4.ch015
Understanding Human Detection of Algorithmic Bias Through Drift-Diffusion ModelingPreprint
Overbye-Thompson, H. E., Hamilton, K. A., & Fisher, J. C. (2025) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-7359286/v1
Gęca, K., Roviello, F., Skórzewska, M., Mlak, R., Polkowski, W. P., & Collaborators, I. (2025) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers17162664
“This disclosure may have introduced an authority bias, whereby participants adjusted their answers due to the perceived credibility of AI rather than the content itself [29–32].”
Virtual radiotherapy plan quality education: Perspectives from a global setting
Colbert, C. M., Kruse, E., Jacqmin, D. J., Pichardo, J. C., Wang, C., Schubert, L. K., Bennett, S., Lin, M., Olsen, L. A., Li, B. C., et al. (2025) · Physica Medica · doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2025.105069
Factors Influencing the Effectiveness of AI-Assisted Decision-Making in Medicine: A Scoping ReviewPreprint
Jackson, N. J., Brown, K. E., Miller, R., Murrow, M., Cauley, M. R., Collins, B. X., Novak, L. L., Benda, N. C., & Ancker, J. S. (2025) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2025.09.02.25334863
“Because this research area does not use consistent terminology 15,16,23,24 , we developed our search query by manually identifying 20 relevant articles that met our inclusion criteria and then adjusted our query until it identified all 20.”
Harnessing ChatGPT for Innovation and Creativity
Pahuja, A., Kaur, S., & Hassan, R. (2025) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-0877-7.ch011
Operator Decision-Making in the Deployment of Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems: A Scoping Review
Shekh, S., Wiggins, M. W., & Morrison, B. W. (2025) · Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making · doi:10.1177/15553434251377968 · Cited by 1
“An automation bias could result in operators favouring suggestions or information from autonomous machine agents while discounting contradictory information from other sources, including their own judgement (Goddard et al., 2012; Parasuraman & Manzey, 2010; Wickens & Dixon, 2007).”
Adoption of AI-based predictive testing: Disentangling acceptability from confidencePreprint
Renaud Bourlès, A., Jelovac, I., Rafaï, I., & Ventelou, B. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5557538
Vertrauenswürdige Künstliche Intelligenz
Schmid, U. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-71567-3_10
WO: Menschen, Technologie und humane Technologie
Walther, C. C. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-95463-4_2
Neurotechnologies in Education: Personalization of Learning Through a Recommendation Service
Bukina, T. V., & Khramova, M. V. (2025) · Scientific School Dynamics of Complex Networks and their Applications (DCNA) · doi:10.1109/dcna67486.2025.11199942
“2) Automation complacency —a state of reduced vigilance and insufficient monitoring of the system as a result of high confidence in its reliability [8].”
InfluentialEnhancing Psychosocial Counselling with AI: A Multifaceted Support System for Professionals
Steigerwald, P., & Albrecht, J. (2025) · Frontiers of artificial intelligence, ethics and multidisciplinary applications. · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-7945-4_35
Weerheijm, B., Giest, S. N., & Klievink, B. (2025) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2025.102088 · Cited by 2
Towards Behaviorally-Enhanced AI Algorithms: Bridging Human and Machine Decision-Making
Aoujil, Z., & Hanine, M. (2025) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-02312-4_38
Souders, D. J., Agrawal, S., Benedyk, I. V., Guo, Y., Li, Y., & Peeta, S. (2025) · Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives · doi:10.1016/j.trip.2025.101725
Kelly, S. L., Walker, M. C., & Forgie, M. (2025) · doi:10.2196/preprints.88778
Carretero, M. (2025) · Revista del Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires · doi:10.51987/rev.hosp.ital.b.aires.v45i4.1270
Inherent Tradeoffs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores
Raghavan, M. (2023) · ACM eBooks · doi:10.1145/3603195.3603206
Hybrid Reasoning Systems That Prioritize and Enhance Human Intelligence
Koon, S. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2735159 · Cited by 1
The Externalities of Exploration and How Data Diversity Helps Exploitation
Raghavan, M. (2023) · ACM eBooks · doi:10.1145/3603195.3603199
Automation bias and the anthropomorphic connotations of artificial intelligence
Viidalepp, A. (2023) · Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.13294116
Algorithmic monoculture and social welfare
(2023) · The Societal Impacts of Algorithmic Decision-Making · doi:10.1145/3603195.3603202
Selection Problems in the Presence of Implicit Bias
Raghavan, M. (2023) · ACM eBooks · doi:10.1145/3603195.3603200
Pelzer, R., Hahne, M., & Taing, S. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-48425-5_4
A Critical Narrative Synthesis Toward Precision Medical Training in Radiology Education
Alkhalili, K., & Ali, S. (2025) · Inquisiva Open · doi:10.64551/001c.150391
Cano-Jiménez, R., Palencia-Viscarra, R., & Palencia-Diaz, R. (2025) · Revista CONAMED · doi:10.35366/122049
Fishman, A. J. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5938296
Designing Human–AI Interactions
Urbach, N., Feulner, D., & Mayer, V. (2026) · Future of business and finance · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-13308-3_11
Quantum Computing and Behavioral Analytics in Hr: The Next Frontier in Talent Management
Wagh, S., Kadam, S. K., & Wanjari, U. (2026) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-13419-6_2
Introduction: Implementation of Artificial Intelligence for Improving Healthcare
Hübner, U. H., Rubeis, G., Delaney, C. W., & Ball, M. J. (2026) · Health informatics · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-11938-4_1
Human Intelligence and the Caring Imperative
Hübner, U. H. (2026) · Health informatics · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-11938-4_3
Ethical, Legal, and Societal Implications of the DARPA in the Moment Program
Trusilo, D., Diaz, L., & Tyler, E. (2026) · Military and humanitarian health ethics · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-11331-3_6
Tatsuki, O., Ikenoue, T., Itoh, N., Nishioka, T., Nagasaka, K., Okochi, R., Adachi, H., Matsuo, N., & Ueno, Y. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-8540709/v1
Balancing Autonomies: The Impact of AI on Patient and Physician Decision-Making in Healthcare
Berber, A., & Mijić, J. (2026) · Integrated science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-14537-6_10
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
