Individual differences moderate effects in an Unusual Disease paradigm: A psychophysical data collection lab approach and an online experiment

How do medical professionals make sense (or not) of AI? A social-media-based computational grounded theory study and an online survey

To investigate opinions and attitudes of medical professionals towards adopting AI-enabled healthcare technologies in their daily business, we used a mixed-methods approach. Study 1 employed a qualitative computational grounded theory approach analyzing 181 Reddit threads in the several subreddits of r/medicine. By utilizing an unsupervised machine learning clustering method, we identified three key themes: (1) consequences of AI, (2) physician-AI relationship, and (3) a proposed way forward. In particular Reddit posts related to the first two themes indicated that the medical professionals' fear of being replaced by AI and skepticism toward AI played a major role in the argumentations. Moreover, the results suggest that this fear is driven by little or moderate knowledge about AI. Posts related to the third theme focused on factual discussions about how AI and medicine have to be designed to become broadly adopted in health care. Study 2 quantitatively examined the relationship between the fear of AI, knowledge about AI, and medical professionals' intention to use AI-enabled technologies in more detail. Results based on a sample of 223 medical professionals who participated in the online survey revealed that the intention to use AI technologies increases with increasing knowledge about AI and that this effect is moderated by the fear of being replaced by AI.

A systematic review of risky-choice framing effects

Classic decision theory requires that rational agents show description invariance: which description is chosen should not matter for judgments, preferences, or choices given the descriptions are co-extensive. Framing research has amply demonstrated a failure of description invariance by showing that the choice of the description has a systematic effect on judgments, preferences, and choices. Specifically, framing research has shown that linguistically different descriptions of seemingly equivalent options frequently lead to preference reversals. I summarize the research on framing in situations entailing risk. This includes the characterization of different research designs used, the size and robustness of the framing effects reported for those designs, and the theoretical accounts put forward to explain framing effects. The theoretical accounts are evaluated with respect to their merits, empirically and theoretically. I end by providing the implications of framing research. My central point is that the existence of framing effects points to the adaptiveness of the processes underlying human judgment and choice rather than simply showing human irrationality.

Differences in decisions affected by cognitive biases: examining human values, need for cognition, and numeracy

A better understanding of factors that can affect preferences and choices may contribute to more accurate decision-making. Several studies have investigated the effects of cognitive biases on decision-making and their relationship with cognitive abilities and thinking dispositions. While studies on behaviour, attitude, personality, and health worries have examined their relationship with human values, research on cognitive bias has not investigated its relationship to individual differences in human values. The purpose of this study was to explore individual differences in biased choices, examining the relationships of the human values self-direction, conformity, power, and universalism with the anchoring effect, the framing effect, the certainty effect, and the outcome bias, as well as the mediation of need for cognition and the moderation of numeracy in these relationships. We measured individual differences and within-participant effects with an online questionnaire completed by 409 Brazilian participants, with an age range from 18 to 80 years, 56.7% female, and 43.3% male. The cognitive biases studied consistently influenced choices and preferences. However, the biases showed distinct relationships with the individual differences investigated, indicating the involvement of diverse psychological mechanisms. For example, people who value more self-direction were less affected only by anchoring. Hence, people more susceptible to one bias were not similarly susceptible to another. This can help in research on how to weaken or strengthen cognitive biases and heuristics.