The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Competent but Rigid: Identifying the Gap in Empowering AI to Participate Equally in Group Decision-Making
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?
In the citing paper
“Research indicates users value AI's responsiveness to their arguments [139].”
From Towards Human-AI Deliberation: Design and Evaluation of LLM-Empowered Deliberative AI for AI-Assisted Decision-Making (2025) · cites this paper as [139]
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
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa · Cited by 194,414
DistilBERT, a distilled version of BERT: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter
Sanh, V., Debut, L., Chaumond, J., & Wolf, T. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1910.01108 · Cited by 4,653
What is AI Literacy? Competencies and Design Considerations
Long, D., & Magerko, B. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3313831.3376727 · Cited by 3,241 · cited 1×
“Data or AI literacy might be the factor for this difference [57].”
BackgroundAlgorithm 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
Ingroup favoritism in cooperation: a meta-analysis
Balliet, D., Wu, J., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2014) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0037737 · Cited by 1,126 · cited 1×
“Some social psychological efects, such as stereotypes [28] and ingroup favoritism [3], may cause people to look at AI with prejudice at the very beginning, even if they had no idea about AI’s capability.”
BackgroundBuçinca, Z., Malaya, M. B., & Gajos, K. Z. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.09692 · Cited by 1,124
Can You Trust Your Model's Uncertainty? Evaluating Predictive Uncertainty Under Dataset Shift
Ovadia, Y., Fertig, E., Ren, J., Nado, Z., Sculley, D., Nowozin, S., Dillon, J. V., Lakshminarayanan, B., & Snoek, J. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1906.02530 · Cited by 989
Zhang, Y., Liao, Q. V., & Bellamy, R. K. E. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3351095.3372852 · Cited by 895
Does the Whole Exceed its Parts? The Effect of AI Explanations on Complementary Team Performance
Bansal, G., Wu, T., Zhou, J., Fok, R., Nushi, B., Kamar, E., Ribeiro, M. T., & Weld, D. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445717 · Cited by 757 · cited 6×
“Nevertheless, new issues, such as humans’ inappropriate trust in AI [48, 95] and the lack of complementary performance [5], have been found by researchers as obstacles to successful human-AI decision-making.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialDoes the Whole Exceed its Parts? The Effect of AI Explanations on Complementary Team Performance
Bansal, G., Wu, T., Zhou, J., Fok, R., Nushi, B., Kamar, E., Ribeiro, M. T., & Weld, D. S. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2006.14779 · Cited by 754
Research works printed but not linked: 68
- 10.1609/aaai.v35i13.17359 · DOI
- 10.1145/3377325.3377498 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/3449287 · doi:10.1145/3449287 · Paper page
- Hao-Fei Cheng, Logan Stapleton, Anna Kawakami, Venkatesh Sivaraman, Yanghuidi Cheng, Diana Qing, Adam Perer, Kenneth Holstein, Zhiwei Steven Wu, and Haiyi Zhu. 2022. How Child Welfare Workers Reduce Racial Disparities in Algorithmic Decisions. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–22.
- Jared R Curhan, Jennifer R Overbeck, Yeri Cho, Teng Zhang, and Yu Yang. 2022. Silence is golden: Extended silence, deliberative mindset, and value creation in negotiation.Journal of applied psychology 107, 1 (2022), 78.
- Gerardine DeSanctis and R Brent Gallupe. 1987. A foundation for the study of group decision support systems. Management science 33, 5 (1987), 589–609.
- Muzaffer Eroğlu and Meltem Karatepe Kaya. 2022. Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Corporate Board Diversity Policies and Regulations. European Business Organization Law Review(2022), 1–32.
- 10.1145/358916.359001 · DOI
- 10.1145/633292.633378 · doi:10.1145/633292.633378
- 10.1109/ICASSP.2013.6638947 · DOI · Paper page
- Greg Guest Kathleen M MacQueen and Emily E Namey. 2011. Applied thematic analysis. sage publications. · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/3236009 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.5555/646247.685022 · doi:10.5555/646247.685022
- 10.1111/j.1440-172X.2012.02017.x · DOI · Paper page
- Nicholas Hertz and Eva Wiese. 2018. Under pressure: Examining social conformity with computer and robot groups. Human factors 60, 8 (2018), 1207–1218.
- 10.1007/s10997-020-09519-9 · DOI
- James L Hilton and William Von Hippel. 1996. Stereotypes. Annual review of psychology 47, 1 (1996), 237–271.
- Randy Y Hirokawa and Marshall Scott Poole. 1996. Communication and group decision making. Sage Publications.
- 10.24251/HICSS.2022.030 · DOI
- 10.1145/3173574.3173640 · DOI
- 10.1145/3411764.3445424 · DOI
- Floyd Hunter. 2017. Community power structure: A study of decision makers. UNC Press Books.
- Holtzblatt Karen and Jones Sandra. 2017. Contextual inquiry: A participatory technique for system design. In Participatory design. CRC Press, 177–210.
- 10.1145/3512902 · DOI
- Saif Khairat, David Marc, William Crosby, Ali Al Sanousi, 2018. Reasons for physicians not adopting clinical decision support systems: critical analysis. JMIR medical informatics 6, 2 (2018), e8912.
- Eugene C Kim. 2007. YouTube: Testing the safe harbors of digital copyright law. S. Cal. Interdisc. LJ 17(2007), 139.
- 10.1145/3313831.3376785 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/3449161 · DOI
- Jon Kleinberg, Himabindu Lakkaraju, Jure Leskovec, Jens Ludwig, and Sendhil Mullainathan. 2018. Human decisions and machine predictions. The quarterly journal of economics 133, 1 (2018), 237–293.
- 10.18653/v1/2022.naacl-main.106 · DOI
- 10.1145/3411764.3445659 · DOI · Paper page
- Balaji Lakshminarayanan, Alexander Pritzel, and Charles Blundell. 2017. Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles. Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017).
- 10.1145/3491102.3517527 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1561/116.00000050 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/3313831.3376590 · DOI · Paper page
- Q Vera Liao and Kush R Varshney. 2021. Human-centered explainable ai (xai): From algorithms to user experiences. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.10790(2021). · arXiv
- 10.1016/j.jm.2003.02.002 · DOI · Paper page
- Harold A Linstone, Murray Turoff, 1975. The delphi method. Addison-Wesley Reading, MA.
- Scott M Lundberg and Su-In Lee. 2017. A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30, I. Guyon, U. V. Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, and R. Garnett (Eds.). Curran Associates, Inc., 4765–4774. http://papers.nips.cc/paper/7062-a-unified-approach-to-interpreting-model-predictions.pdf
- Scott M Lundberg, Bala Nair, Monica S Vavilala, Mayumi Horibe, Michael J Eisses, Trevor Adams, David E Liston, Daniel King-Wai Low, Shu-Fang Newman, Jerry Kim, 2018. Explainable machine-learning predictions for the prevention of hypoxaemia during surgery. Nature biomedical engineering 2, 10 (2018), 749–760.
- Shuai Ma, Mingfei Sun, and Xiaojuan Ma. 2022. Modeling Adaptive Expression of Robot Learning Engagement and Exploring its Effects on Human Teachers. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (2022).
- 10.1145/3290605.3300701 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/3491102.3517482 · DOI
- 10.1145/3411764.3445355 · DOI
- Yaoli Mao Dakuo Wang Michael Muller Kush R Varshney Ioana Baldini Casey Dugan and Aleksandra Mojsilović. 2019. How data scientistswork together with domain experts in scientific collaborations: To find the right answer or to ask the right question?Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3 GROUP(2019) 1–23. · DOI
- Andrew Monk. 2003. Common ground in electronically mediated communication: Clark’s theory of language use. HCI models, theories, and frameworks: Toward a multidisciplinary science (2003), 265–289.
- 10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.067 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/ISTAS48451.2019.8937920 · DOI
- 10.1145/153571.255960 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/3290605.3300328 · DOI
- Martin Petrin. 2019. Corporate Management in the Age of AI. Colum. Bus. L. Rev. (2019) 965. · DOI
- 10.1145/3411764.3445406 · DOI
- Margaret Potter, Sandy Gordon, and Peter Hamer. 2004. The nominal group technique: a useful consensus methodology in physiotherapy research. NZ Journal of Physiotherapy 32, 3 (2004), 126–130.
- 10.5898/JHRI.1.1.Riek · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/3498326 · DOI
- 10.1007/BF00055564 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/3492832 · DOI
- 10.1145/3173574.3173965 · DOI
- Chuhan Shi, Fei Nie, Yicheng Hu, Yige Xu, Lei Chen, Xiaojuan Ma, and Qiong Luo. 2022. MedChemLens: An Interactive Visual Tool to Support Direction Selection in Interdisciplinary Experimental Research of Medicinal Chemistry. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 29, 1(2022), 63–73.
- Ben Shneiderman. 2022. Human-Centered AI. Oxford University Press. · DOI · Paper page
- 10.18653/v1/D16-1193 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s40685-020-00133-x · DOI
- 10.1016/j.chb.2018.09.009 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/3489465 · DOI
- 10.1145/3411764.3445526 · DOI
- 10.1145/3064663.3064712 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-3-319-09767-1_62 · DOI
- 10.1145/3491102.3517615 · DOI
Cited by
Enhancing AI-Assisted Group Decision Making through LLM-Powered Devil's Advocate
Chiang, C.-W., Lu, Z., Li, Z., & Yin, M. (2024) · Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3640543.3645199 · Cited by 142
Charting the Future of AI in Project-Based Learning: A Co-Design Exploration with Students
Zheng, C., Yuan, K., Guo, B., Mogavi, R. H., Peng, Z., Ma, S., & Ma, X. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.14915 · Cited by 70
Self-citationCharting the Future of AI in Project-Based Learning: A Co-Design Exploration with Students
Zheng, C., Yuan, K., Guo, B., Hadi Mogavi, R., Peng, Z., Ma, S., & Ma, X. (2024) · Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3642807 · Cited by 70
Self-citationA Taxonomy for Human-LLM Interaction Modes: An Initial Exploration
Gao, J., Gebreegziabher, S. A., Choo, K. T. W., Li, T. J.-J., Perrault, S. T., & Malone, T. W. (2024) · Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613905.3650786 · Cited by 57
“This is typically achieved by integrating an agent within the team that aids in communication [16], decision-making [83], information sharing, and coordination.”
Ma, S., Chen, Q., Wang, X., Zheng, C., Peng, Z., Yin, M., & Ma, X. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3713423 · Cited by 48
Self-citationSalimzadeh, S., He, G., & Gadiraju, U. (2024) · Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3641905 · Cited by 41
“Recent studies have explored variables that contribute to the fairness [31, 76, 124, 130] and trustworthiness [34, 48, 80, 139] of AI systems, as well as the impact of assigning different decision-making roles to humans and AI on the reliance on such systems [52, 103, 122, 144].”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Zheng, C., Wu, Y., Shi, C., Ma, S., Luo, J., & Ma, X.
- Affiliations
- Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, China
- Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, China
- The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, China
- Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2023-04-19
- Pages
- 1-19
- Cited by
- 48
- References
- 27
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.
