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
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Buçinca, Z., Malaya, M. B., & Gajos, K. Z. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.09692 · Cited by 1,124
The Anchoring-and-Adjustment Heuristic: Why the Adjustments Are Insufficient
Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2006) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01704.x · Cited by 920
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
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. S. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2006.14779 · Cited by 754
Manipulating and Measuring Model Interpretability
Poursabzi-Sangdeh, F., Goldstein, D. G., Hofman, J. M., Wortman Vaughan, J. W., & Wallach, H. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445315 · Cited by 728
Does automation bias decision-making?
SKITKA, L. J., MOSIER, K. L., & BURDICK, M. (1999) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1006/ijhc.1999.0252 · Cited by 694
The Role of Explanations on Trust and Reliance in Clinical Decision Support Systems
Bussone, A., Stumpf, S., & O'Sullivan, D. (2015) · 2015 International Conference on Healthcare Informatics · doi:10.1109/ichi.2015.26 · Cited by 441
Ashktorab, Z., Desmond, M., Pan, Q., Johnson, J., Brachman, M., Dugan, C., Danilevsky, M., & Geyer, W. (2025) · Proceedings of the 4th Annual Symposium on Human-Computer Interaction for Work · doi:10.1145/3729176.3729179 · Cited by 10
Research works printed but not linked: 26
- Amershi, 2019, “Guidelines for human-ai interaction,”, 1, 10.1145/3290605.3300233 · DOI · Paper page
- Böckenholt, 1993, Toward a theory of hypothesis generation in diagnostic decision making, Investigativ. Radiol, 28, 76, 10.1097/00004424-199301000-00020 · DOI
- 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
- Dougherty, 2010, “Toward an integrative theory of hypothesis generation, probability judgment, and hypothesis testing,”, 299, 10.1016/S0079-7421(10)52008-5 · DOI
- 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
- Hoff, 2015, Trust in automation: integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust, Human Factors, 57, 407, 10.1177/0018720814547570 · DOI · Paper page
- Illingworth, 2023, “Using perspective taking and information paucity to explore alternative realities,”, 17
- Illingworth, 2022, Strength of belief guides information foraging, Psychol. Sci, 33, 450, 10.1177/09567976211043425 · DOI
- Klayman, 1987, Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing, Psychol. Rev, 94, 211, 10.1037/0033-295X.94.2.211 · DOI · Paper page
- Lange, 2013, Data acquisition dynamics and hypothesis generation, Cognitiv. Syst. Res, 24, 9, 10.1016/j.cogsys.2012.12.006 · DOI
- 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
- Lee, 1992, Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems, Ergonomics, 35, 1243, 10.1080/00140139208967392 · DOI · Paper page
- Lemus, 2023, “How displaying ai confidence affects reliance and hybrid human-AI performance,”, HHAI, 234
- 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
- Parasuraman, 1997, Humans and automation: use, misuse, disuse, abuse, Human Factors, 39, 230, 10.1518/001872097778543886 · DOI · Paper page
- Parmar, 2021, “Model blindness: a framework for understanding how model-based decision support systems can lead to performance degradation,”, 680
- 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
- Parmar, 2020, Effects of probabilistic risk situation awareness tool (RSAT) on aeronautical weather-hazard decision making, Front. Psychol, 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.566780 · DOI
- Payne, 1993, The Adaptive Decision Maker, 10.1017/CBO9781139173933 · DOI · Paper page
- Pirolli, 1999, Information foraging, Psychol. Rev, 106, 643, 10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.643 · DOI · Paper page
- 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
- Sprenger, 2011, Implications of cognitive load for hypothesis generation and probability judgment, Front. Psychol, 2, 129, 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00129 · DOI
- Thomas, 2014, Memory constraints on hypothesis generation and decision making, Cur. Dir. Psychol. Sci, 23, 264, 10.1177/0963721414534853 · DOI
- Thomas, 2008, Diagnostic hypothesis generation and human judgment, Psychol. Rev, 115, 155, 10.1037/0033-295X.115.1.155 · DOI
- 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
- 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
Ashktorab, Z., Desmond, M., Pan, Q., Johnson, J., Brachman, M., Dugan, C., Danilevsky, M., & Geyer, W. (2025) · Proceedings of the 4th Annual Symposium on Human-Computer Interaction for Work · doi:10.1145/3729176.3729179 · Cited by 10
Metadata
- Authors
- Pham, M. P., Illingworth-Vera, D. A., & Thomas, R. P.
- Venue
- Frontiers in Psychology
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- 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
