ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2026
Warning people about the risk of AI error mitigates human acquisition of AI bias.
Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Empirical evidence has demonstrated the power of AI to influence human decisions and the risk of humans acquiring AI biases. Therefore, there is a clear need to develop strategies to mitigate such threat. In three experiments, set in a medical context, we tested whether warning individuals about AI biases and errors could mitigate the negative impact of AI biases on their decisions and reduce the transmission of AI biases to humans. In Experiment 1, participants received explicit information about the percentage of erroneous AI recommendations but with two different framings: in terms of AI accuracy or AI risk of error. Our results showed that emphasising the risk of AI errors, more than its accuracy, reduced people's tendency to follow incorrect AI suggestions and to acquire biases from AI. In Experiment 2, a more general warning message alerting of possible AI errors and biases was also effective in reducing bias acquisition. Experiment 3 showed that, although the warning message provided some protection against bias, participants who received AI support still made more errors than participants who completed the classification task without any assistance. Experiments 2 and 3 also investigated whether the type of error made by the AI, a false positive or a false negative, influenced participants' tendency to adhere to its suggestions, and the effect of the warning message. However, no significant effects were found. Overall, our results highlight the importance of informing users about the risk of AI error rather than focusing solely on accuracy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.