Cited by 1

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

AI interventions as hypothesis cues: rethinking overreliance in human-AI decision-making

Pham, Mai Phuong, Illingworth-Vera, David A., Thomas, Rickey P.·2026·Frontiers in Psychology

Overview

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

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

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1967356

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

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

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

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 8 references

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. Amershi, 2019, “Guidelines for human-ai interaction,”, 1, 10.1145/3290605.3300233 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Böckenholt, 1993, Toward a theory of hypothesis generation in diagnostic decision making, Investigativ. Radiol, 28, 76, 10.1097/00004424-199301000-00020 · DOI
  3. Dougherty, 2003, Hypothesis generation, probability judgment, and individual differences in working memory capacity, Acta psychologica, 113, 263, 10.1016/S0001-6918(03)00033-7 · DOI
  4. Dougherty, 2010, “Toward an integrative theory of hypothesis generation, probability judgment, and hypothesis testing,”, 299, 10.1016/S0079-7421(10)52008-5 · DOI
  5. Endsley, 1995, The out-of-the-loop performance problem and level of control in automation, Human Factors, 37, 381, 10.1518/001872095779064555 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Hoff, 2015, Trust in automation: integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust, Human Factors, 57, 407, 10.1177/0018720814547570 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Illingworth, 2023, “Using perspective taking and information paucity to explore alternative realities,”, 17
  8. Illingworth, 2022, Strength of belief guides information foraging, Psychol. Sci, 33, 450, 10.1177/09567976211043425 · DOI
  9. Klayman, 1987, Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing, Psychol. Rev, 94, 211, 10.1037/0033-295X.94.2.211 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Lange, 2013, Data acquisition dynamics and hypothesis generation, Cognitiv. Syst. Res, 24, 9, 10.1016/j.cogsys.2012.12.006 · DOI
  11. Lange, 2012, Temporal dynamics of hypothesis generation: the influences of data serial order, data consistency, and elicitation timing, Front. Psychol, 3, 215, 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00215 · DOI
  12. Lee, 1992, Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems, Ergonomics, 35, 1243, 10.1080/00140139208967392 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Lemus, 2023, “How displaying ai confidence affects reliance and hybrid human-AI performance,”, HHAI, 234
  14. Miller, 2019, Explanation in artificial intelligence: insights from the social sciences, Artificial Intelligence, 267, 1, 10.1016/j.artint.2018.07.007 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Parasuraman, 1997, Humans and automation: use, misuse, disuse, abuse, Human Factors, 39, 230, 10.1518/001872097778543886 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Parmar, 2021, “Model blindness: a framework for understanding how model-based decision support systems can lead to performance degradation,”, 680
  17. Parmar, 2023, Model blindness II: investigating a model-based recommender system's impact on decision making, Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet, 67, 163, 10.1177/21695067231192247 · DOI
  18. Parmar, 2020, Effects of probabilistic risk situation awareness tool (RSAT) on aeronautical weather-hazard decision making, Front. Psychol, 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.566780 · DOI
  19. Payne, 1993, The Adaptive Decision Maker, 10.1017/CBO9781139173933 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Pirolli, 1999, Information foraging, Psychol. Rev, 106, 643, 10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.643 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Ribeiro, 2016, “Why should I trust you?: explaining the predictions of any classifier,”, Proceedings of the 2016 conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: demonstrations, 97, 10.1145/2939672.2939778 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Sprenger, 2011, Implications of cognitive load for hypothesis generation and probability judgment, Front. Psychol, 2, 129, 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00129 · DOI
  23. Thomas, 2014, Memory constraints on hypothesis generation and decision making, Cur. Dir. Psychol. Sci, 23, 264, 10.1177/0963721414534853 · DOI
  24. Thomas, 2008, Diagnostic hypothesis generation and human judgment, Psychol. Rev, 115, 155, 10.1037/0033-295X.115.1.155 · DOI
  25. Weber, 1993, Determinants of diagnostic hypothesis generation: effects of information, base rates, and experience, J. Exp. Psychol.: Learning, Memory, Cognition, 19, 1151, 10.1037/0278-7393.19.5.1151 · DOI
  26. Zhang, 2020, “Effect of confidence and explanation on accuracy and trust calibration in AI-assisted decision making,”, 295, 10.1145/3351095.3372852 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 1

Metadata

Authors
Pham, M. P., Illingworth-Vera, D. A., & Thomas, R. P.
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2026-10-06
Volume
17
ISSN
1664-1078
Cited by
0
References
8

About these checks

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

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

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

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

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: AI interventions as hypothesis cues: rethinking overreliance in human-AI decision-making. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1967356
The paper
Pham, M. P., Illingworth-Vera, D. A., & Thomas, R. P. (2026). AI interventions as hypothesis cues: rethinking overreliance in human-AI decision-making. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1967356