To Trust or to Think: Cognitive Forcing Functions Can Reduce Overreliance on AI in AI-assisted Decision-making: Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction: Vol 5, No CSCW1
- Home
- ACM Journals
- Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
- Vol. 5, No. CSCW1
- To Trust or to Think: Cognitive Forcing Functions Can Reduce Overreliance on AI in AI-assisted Decision-making
You are using the Basic Edition. Features requiring a subscription appear in grey.
Sign in to your subscription or learn more
research-article
__Free access
Share on
- *
To Trust or to Think: Cognitive Forcing Functions Can Reduce Overreliance on AI in AI-assisted Decision-making
Authors: 
Zana Buçinca, Maja Barbara Malaya, 
Krzysztof Z. GajosAuthors Info & Claims
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Volume 5, Issue CSCW1
Article No.: 188, Pages 1 - 21
https://doi.org/10.1145/3449287
Published: 22 April 2021 Publication History
__756 citation __18,159 Downloads
__
Add a Citation Alert
To add a citation alert, please log in to your account
__Contents
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
PREVIOUS ARTICLEPolitical Ecologies of Participation __Previous###### NEXT ARTICLEComputer-Mediated Consent to SexNext __
- Abstract
- Abstract
- AI Summary
-
References
-
__Information & Contributors
- __Bibliometrics & Citations
- __Reading Options
- __References
- __Figures
- __Tables
- __Media *
Abstract
Abstract
People supported by AI-powered decision support tools frequently overrely on the AI: they accept an AI's suggestion even when that suggestion is wrong. Adding explanations to the AI decisions does not appear to reduce the overreliance and some studies suggest that it might even increase it. Informed by the dual-process theory of cognition, we posit that people rarely engage analytically with each individual AI recommendation and explanation, and instead develop general heuristics about whether and when to follow the AI suggestions. Building on prior research on medical decision-making, we designed three cognitive forcing interventions to compel people to engage more thoughtfully with the AI-generated explanations. We conducted an experiment (N=199), in which we compared our three cognitive forcing designs to two simple explainable AI approaches and to a no-AI baseline. The results demonstrate that cognitive forcing significantly reduced overreliance compared to the simple explainable AI approaches. However, there was a trade-off: people assigned the least favorable subjective ratings to the designs that reduced the overreliance the most. To audit our work for intervention-generated inequalities, we investigated whether our interventions benefited equally people with different levels of Need for Cognition (i.e., motivation to engage in effortful mental activities). Our results show that, on average, cognitive forcing interventions benefited participants higher in Need for Cognition more. Our research suggests that human cognitive motivation moderates the effectiveness of explainable AI solutions.
AI Summary
AI-Generated Summary (Experimental)
This summary was generated using automated tools and was not authored or reviewed by the article's author(s). It is provided to support discovery, help readers assess relevance, and assist readers from adjacent research areas in understanding the work. It is intended to complement the author-supplied abstract, which remains the primary summary of the paper. The full article remains the authoritative version of record. Click here to learn more.
Click here to comment on the accuracy, clarity, and usefulness of this summary. Doing so will help inform refinements and future regenerated versions.
To view this AI-generated plain language summary, you must have Premium access.
Formats available
You can view the full content in the following formats:
References
[1]
Gagan Bansal, Besmira Nushi, Ece Kamar, Walter S Lasecki, Daniel S Weld, and Eric Horvitz. 2019. Beyond accuracy: The role of mental models in human-AI team performance. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing, Vol. 7. 2--11.
[2]
Gagan Bansal, Tongshuang Wu, Joyce Zhu, Raymond Fok, Besmira Nushi, Ece Kamar, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, and Daniel S Weld. 2021. Does the Whole Exceed its Parts? The Effect of AI Explanations on Complementary Team Performance. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan)(CHI '21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1--16. To appear.
[3]
Dale J Barr, Roger Levy, Christoph Scheepers, and Harry J Tily. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of memory and language, Vol. 68, 3 (2013), 255--278.
[4]
Eta S Berner and Mark L Graber. 2008. Overconfidence as a cause of diagnostic error in medicine. The American journal of medicine, Vol. 121, 5 (2008), S2--S23.
[5]
Umang Bhatt, Adrian Weller, and José M. F. Moura. 2020. Evaluating and Aggregating Feature-based Model Explanations. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-20, Christian Bessiere (Ed.). International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization, 3016--3022. https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2020/417
[6]
Brian H Bornstein and A Christine Emler. 2001. Rationality in medical decision making: a review of the literature on doctors' decision-making biases. Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, Vol. 7, 2 (2001), 97--107.
[7]
Zana Buccinca, Phoebe Lin, Krzysztof Z. Gajos, and Elena L. Glassman. 2020. Proxy Tasks and Subjective Measures Can Be Misleading in Evaluating Explainable AI Systems. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI '20). ACM, New York, NY, USA.
[8]
Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru. 2018. Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In Conference on fairness, accountability and transparency. 77--91.
[9]
Adrian Bussone, Simone Stumpf, and Dympna O'Sullivan. 2015. The role of explanations on trust and reliance in clinical decision support systems. In 2015 International Conference on Healthcare Informatics. IEEE, 160--169.
[10]
John T. Cacioppo and Richard E. Petty. 1982. The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 42, 1 (1982), 116--131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116
[11]
J T Cacioppo, R E Petty, and C F Kao. 1984. The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of personality assessment, Vol. 48, 3 (1984), 306--307. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13
[12]
Giuseppe Carenini. 2001. An Analysis of the Influence of Need for Cognition on Dynamic Queries Usage. In CHI '01 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Seattle, Washington) (CHI EA '01). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 383--384. https://doi.org/10.1145/634067.634293
[13]
Ana-Maria Cazan and Simona Elena Indreica. 2014. Need for cognition and approaches to learning among university students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 127 (2014), 134--138.
[14]
Jim Q Chen and Sang M Lee. 2003. An exploratory cognitive DSS for strategic decision making. Decision support systems, Vol. 36, 2 (2003), 147--160.
[15]
Glinda S Cooper and Vanessa Meterko. 2019. Cognitive bias research in forensic science: a systematic review. Forensic science international, Vol. 297 (2019), 35--46.
[16]
Pat Croskerry. 2003 a. Cognitive forcing strategies in clinical decisionmaking. Annals of emergency medicine, Vol. 41, 1 (2003), 110--120.
[17]
Pat Croskerry. 2003 b. The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strategies to minimize them. Academic medicine, Vol. 78, 8 (2003), 775--780.
[18]
Louis Deslauriers, Logan S McCarty, Kelly Miller, Kristina Callaghan, and Greg Kestin. 2019. Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2019), 201821936.
[19]
Jennifer L Eberhardt. 2020. Biased: Uncovering the hidden prejudice that shapes what we see, think, and do. Penguin Books.
[20]
John W Ely, Mark L Graber, and Pat Croskerry. 2011. Checklists to reduce diagnostic errors. Academic Medicine, Vol. 86, 3 (2011), 307--313.
[21]
Gavan J Fitzsimons and Donald R Lehmann. 2004. Reactance to recommendations: When unsolicited advice yields contrary responses. Marketing Science, Vol. 23, 1 (2004), 82--94.
[22]
Krzysztof Z. Gajos and Krysta Chauncey. 2017. The Influence of Personality Traits and Cognitive Load on the Use of Adaptive User Interfaces. In Proceedings of the 22Nd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (Limassol, Cyprus) (IUI '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 301--306. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025171.3025192
[23]
Neelansh Garg, Apuroop Sethupathy, Rudraksh Tuwani, Rakhi Nk, Shubham Dokania, Arvind Iyer, Ayushi Gupta, Shubhra Agrawal, Navjot Singh, Shubham Shukla, et almbox. 2018. FlavorDB: a database of flavor molecules. Nucleic acids research, Vol. 46, D1 (2018), D1210-D1216.
[24]
Bhavya Ghai, Q. Vera Liao, Yunfeng Zhang, Rachel Bellamy, and Klaus Mueller. 2021. Explainable Active Learning (XAL): Toward AI Explanations as Interfaces for Machine Teachers. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 4, CSCW3, Article 235 (2021), 28 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3432934
[25]
Mark L Graber, Stephanie Kissam, Velma L Payne, Ashley ND Meyer, Asta Sorensen, Nancy Lenfestey, Elizabeth Tant, Kerm Henriksen, Kenneth LaBresh, and Hardeep Singh. 2012. Cognitive interventions to reduce diagnostic error: a narrative review. BMJ quality & safety, Vol. 21, 7 (2012), 535--557.
[26]
Ben Green and Yiling Chen. 2019. The principles and limits of algorithm-in-the-loop decision making. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 3, CSCW (2019), 1--24.
[27]
Curtis P Haugtvedt, Richard E Petty, and John T Cacioppo. 1992. Need for cognition and advertising: Understanding the role of personality variables in consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 1, 3 (1992), 239--260.
[28]
Sture Holm. 1979. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, Vol. 6, 2 (1979), 65--70.
[29]
Jessica Hullman, Eytan Adar, and Priti Shah. 2011. Benefitting infovis with visual difficulties. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, Vol. 17, 12 (2011), 2213--2222.
[30]
Maia Jacobs, Melanie F. Pradier, Thomas H. McCoy Jr, Roy H. Perlis, Finale Doshi-Velez, and Krzysztof Z. Gajos. 2021. How machine-learning recommendations influence clinician treatment selections: the example of the antidepressant selection. Translational Psychiatry, Vol. 11 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-021-01224-x
[31]
Heinrich Jiang, Been Kim, Melody Y Guan, and Maya Gupta. 2018. To trust or not to trust a classifier. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. 5546--5557.
[32]
Daniel Kahneman. 2011. Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.
[33]
Daniel Kahneman and Shane Frederick. 2002. Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. New York. Cambridge University Press., 49--81.
[34]
Daniel Kahneman, Stewart Paul Slovic, Paul Slovic, and Amos Tversky. 1982. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge university press.
[35]
Ece Kamar. 2016. Directions in Hybrid Intelligence: Complementing AI Systems with Human Intelligence. In IJCAI. 4070--4073.
[36]
Ece Kamar, Severin Hacker, and Eric Horvitz. 2012. Combining human and machine intelligence in large-scale crowdsourcing. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems-Volume 1. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 467--474.
[37]
Eric Kearney, Diether Gebert, and Sven C Voelpel. 2009. When and how diversity benefits teams: The importance of team members' need for cognition. Academy of Management journal, Vol. 52, 3 (2009), 581--598.
[38]
Wouter Kool and Matthew Botvinick. 2018. Mental labour. Nature human behaviour, Vol. 2, 12 (2018), 899--908.
[39]
Todd Kulesza, Simone Stumpf, Margaret Burnett, Sherry Yang, Irwin Kwan, and Weng-Keen Wong. 2013. Too much, too little, or just right? Ways explanations impact end users' mental models. In 2013 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human Centric Computing. IEEE, 3--10.
[40]
Vivian Lai, Han Liu, and Chenhao Tan. 2020. "Why is 'Chicago' Deceptive?" Towards Building Model-Driven Tutorials for Humans. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1--13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376873
[41]
Vivian Lai and Chenhao Tan. 2019. On human predictions with explanations and predictions of machine learning models: A case study on deception detection. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 29--38.
[42]
Kathryn Ann Lambe, Gary O'Reilly, Brendan D Kelly, and Sarah Curristan. 2016. Dual-process cognitive interventions to enhance diagnostic reasoning: a systematic review. BMJ quality & safety, Vol. 25, 10 (2016), 808--820.
[43]
G Daniel Lassiter, Michael A Briggs, and R David Slaw. 1991. Need for cognition, causal processing, and memory for behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 17, 6 (1991), 694--700.
[44]
John D Lee and Katrina A See. 2004. Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human factors, Vol. 46, 1 (2004), 50--80.
[45]
Chin-Lung Lin, Sheng-Hsien Lee, and Der-Juinn Horng. 2011. The effects of online reviews on purchasing intention: The moderating role of need for cognition. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, Vol. 39, 1 (2011), 71--81.
[46]
Scott M Lundberg and Su-In Lee. 2017. A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30. Curran Associates, Inc., 4765--4774.
[47]
Martijn Millecamp, Nyi Nyi Htun, Cristina Conati, and Katrien Verbert. 2019. To Explain or Not to Explain: The Effects of Personal Characteristics When Explaining Music Recommendations. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (Marina del Ray, California) (IUI '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 397--407. https://doi.org/10.1145/3301275.3302313
[48]
Martijn Millecamp, Nyi Nyi Htun, Cristina Conati, and Katrien Verbert. 2020. What's in a User? Towards Personalising Transparency for Music Recommender Interfaces. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (Genoa, Italy) (UMAP '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 173--182. https://doi.org/10.1145/3340631.3394844
[49]
Carol-anne E Moulton, Glenn Regehr, Maria Mylopoulos, and Helen M MacRae. 2007. Slowing down when you should: a new model of expert judgment. Academic Medicine, Vol. 82, 10 (2007), S109--S116.
[50]
Joon Sung Park, Rick Barber, Alex Kirlik, and Karrie Karahalios. 2019. A Slow Algorithm Improves Users' Assessments of the Algorithm's Accuracy. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 3, CSCW (2019), 1--15.
[51]
Avi Parush, Shir Ahuvia, and Ido Erev. 2007. Degradation in spatial knowledge acquisition when using automatic navigation systems. In International conference on spatial information theory. Springer, 238--254.
[52]
Richard E. Petty and John T. Cacioppo. 1986. The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. Communication and Persuasion, Vol. 19 (1986), 1--24. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4964-1_1 arxiv: arXiv:1011.1669v3
[53]
Vlad L Pop, Alex Shrewsbury, and Francis T Durso. 2015. Individual differences in the calibration of trust in automation. Human factors, Vol. 57, 4 (2015), 545--556.
[54]
Inioluwa Deborah Raji, Andrew Smart, Rebecca N. White, Margaret Mitchell, Timnit Gebru, Ben Hutchinson, Jamila Smith-Loud, Daniel Theron, and Parker Barnes. 2020. Closing the AI Accountability Gap: Defining an End-to-End Framework for Internal Algorithmic Auditing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Barcelona, Spain) (FAT* '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 33--44. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372873
[55]
Jonathan Sherbino, Kulamakan Kulasegaram, Elizabeth Howey, and Geoffrey Norman. 2014. Ineffectiveness of cognitive forcing strategies to reduce biases in diagnostic reasoning: a controlled trial. Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine, Vol. 16, 1 (2014), 34--40.
[56]
Maria Sicilia, Salvador Ruiz, and Jose L Munuera. 2005. Effects of interactivity in a web site: The moderating effect of need for cognition. Journal of advertising, Vol. 34, 3 (2005), 31--44.
[57]
J Spilke, HP Piepho, and X Hu. 2005. Analysis of unbalanced data by mixed linear models using the MIXED procedure of the SAS system. Journal of Agronomy and crop science, Vol. 191, 1 (2005), 47--54.
[58]
Tracy L Tuten and Michael Bosnjak. 2001. Understanding differences in web usage: The role of need for cognition and the five factor model of personality. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, Vol. 29, 4 (2001), 391--398.
[59]
Michelle Vaccaro and Jim Waldo. 2019. The effects of mixing machine learning and human judgment. Commun. ACM, Vol. 62, 11 (2019), 104--110.
[60]
Tiffany C Veinot, Hannah Mitchell, and Jessica S Ancker. 2018. Good intentions are not enough: how informatics interventions can worsen inequality. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, Vol. 25, 8 (2018), 1080--1088.
[61]
Jennifer Irvin Vidrine, Vani Nath Simmons, and Thomas H. Brandon. 2007. Construction of smoking-relevant risk perceptions among college students: The influence of need for cognition and message content. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 37, 1 (2007), 91--114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2007.00149.x
[62]
Alan R Wagner, Jason Borenstein, and Ayanna Howard. 2018. Overtrust in the robotic age. Commun. ACM, Vol. 61, 9 (2018), 22--24.
[63]
Peter C Wason and J St BT Evans. 1974. Dual processes in reasoning? Cognition, Vol. 3, 2 (1974), 141--154.
[64]
Jacob Westfall, David A Kenny, and Charles M Judd. 2014. Statistical power and optimal design in experiments in which samples of participants respond to samples of stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol. 143, 5 (2014).
[65]
Pamela Williams-Piehota, Tamera R Schneider, Linda Mowad, and Peter Salovey. 2003. Matching Health Messages to Information-Processing Styles: Need for Cognition and Mammography Utilization. Health Communication, Vol. 15, 4 (2003), 375--392.
[66]
Ming Yin, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, and Hanna Wallach. 2019. Understanding the effect of accuracy on trust in machine learning models. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--12.
[67]
Yunfeng Zhang, Q. Vera Liao, and Rachel K. E. Bellamy. 2020. Effect of Confidence and Explanation on Accuracy and Trust Calibration in AI-Assisted Decision Making. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Barcelona, Spain) (FAT*'20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 295--305. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372852
Cited By
- Zhang Y Shaik FAcharjee SKhalid FOussalah M(2026)Towards reliable multimodal disaster severity assessment through preference optimization and explainable vision-language reasoningReliability Engineering & System Safety10.1016/j.ress.2026.112674275(112674)Online publication date: Nov-2026
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2026.112674
- Zhang X(2026)Beyond Hayek: Computing the incomputable—tacit knowledge and power order in the age of digital intelligenceJournal of Innovation & Knowledge10.1016/j.jik.2026.10105017(101050)Online publication date: Oct-2026
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2026.101050
- Lin C(2026)To think deeply or not in internships: Unpacking the dual impact of AI on management learning through theory of Affordance-Learning-ActualizationThinking Skills and Creativity10.1016/j.tsc.2026.10220961(102209)Online publication date: Sep-2026
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2026.102209
Index Terms
-
To Trust or to Think: Cognitive Forcing Functions Can Reduce Overreliance on AI in AI-assisted Decision-making
Recommendations
IUI '20: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces
Explainable artificially intelligent (XAI) systems form part of sociotechnical systems , e.g., human+AI teams tasked with making decisions. Yet, current XAI systems are rarely evaluated by measuring the performance of human+AI teams on actual decision-...
Abstract
Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) enable researchers to create more powerful AI agents that are becoming competent teammates for humans. However, human distrust of AI is a critical factor that may impede human-AI ...
Highlights * Humans accept their AI teammate's decision less often when they are deceived about the identity of the AI as another human.
Appropriate trust is an important component of the interaction between people and AI systems, in that “inappropriate” trust can cause disuse, misuse, or abuse of AI. To foster appropriate trust in AI, we need to understand how AI systems can elicit ...
Comments
__Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction Volume 5, Issue CSCW1
CSCW
April 2021
5016 pages
EISSN:2573-0142
DOI:10.1145/3460939
- Editor:
- Jeff Nichols
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published : 22 April 2021
Published in PACMHCI Volume 5, Issue CSCW1
Permissions
Request permissions for this article.
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Contributors
Other Metrics
View Article Metrics
__Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 756
Total Citations
View Citations * 18,159
Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)...
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks) ...
Reflects downloads up to 07 Jun 2026
Other Metrics
View Author Metrics
Citations
Cited By
- Zhang Y Shaik FAcharjee SKhalid FOussalah M(2026)Towards reliable multimodal disaster severity assessment through preference optimization and explainable vision-language reasoningReliability Engineering & System Safety10.1016/j.ress.2026.112674275(112674)Online publication date: Nov-2026
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2026.112674
- Zhang X(2026)Beyond Hayek: Computing the incomputable—tacit knowledge and power order in the age of digital intelligenceJournal of Innovation & Knowledge10.1016/j.jik.2026.10105017(101050)Online publication date: Oct-2026
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2026.101050
- Lin C(2026)To think deeply or not in internships: Unpacking the dual impact of AI on management learning through theory of Affordance-Learning-ActualizationThinking Skills and Creativity10.1016/j.tsc.2026.10220961(102209)Online publication date: Sep-2026
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2026.102209
- Camilleri M(2026)Opening the black box: Operational principles, tools and frameworks that advance explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) modelsTechnological Forecasting and Social Change10.1016/j.techfore.2026.124710229(124710)Online publication date: Aug-2026
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2026.124710
- Xie WLiu FLiu JLiu S(2026)Beyond literacy to clinical competency: A framework for integrating generative AI into nursing educationNurse Education Today10.1016/j.nedt.2026.107108163(107108)Online publication date: Aug-2026
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2026.107108
- Ding YZhu FZheng PXie M(2026)Hierarchy-aware prompt tuning with bidirectional information propagation for failure data miningKnowledge-Based Systems10.1016/j.knosys.2026.116252347(116252)Online publication date: Jul-2026
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2026.116252
- İlter H(2026)Field-mediated assemblage formation in coupled human–machine agent systems: A Gaussian kernel framework with ethical frictionJournal of Computational Science10.1016/j.jocs.2026.10290498(102904)Online publication date: Jul-2026
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocs.2026.102904
- Tilbury JFlowerday SBott GChua YOlson EFoltz B(2026)Human-factor vulnerabilities of automation in SOCs: A mixed-methods multigroup analysisComputers & Security10.1016/j.cose.2026.104871166(104871)Online publication date: Jul-2026
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2026.104871
- Chandra JAlgazinov ANavneet SFilali RLaing MHanna AZhang Y(2026)TRACE: Transparent Web Reliability Assessment with Contextual ExplanationsCompanion Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 202610.1145/3774905.3795838(1161-1170)Online publication date: 29-Jun-2026
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3774905.3795838
- Disse JNienhaus LLeismann YDrost MDrögehoff JBecker K(2026)Unseen Realities: A Speculative Interactive System for Exploring AI-Mediated PerceptionProceedings of the 2026 ACM International Conference on Interactive Media Experiences10.1145/3788851.3815033(509-513)Online publication date: 9-Jun-2026
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3788851.3815033
__Share
Share
Share this Publication link
__Copy Link
__Copied!
__Copying failed.
Share on social media
__X __LinkedIn __Reddit __Facebook __email
