<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>decision-making on Anne-Kathrin Kleine</title>
    <link>https://annekathrinkleine.netlify.app/categories/decision-making/</link>
    <description>Recent content in decision-making on Anne-Kathrin Kleine</description>
    <generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator>
    <language>en</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://annekathrinkleine.netlify.app/categories/decision-making/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Can the timing of AI advice reduce overreliance? Evidence from face matching</title>
      <link>https://annekathrinkleine.netlify.app/blog/2026-02-ai-advice-face-matching/</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      
      <guid>https://annekathrinkleine.netlify.app/blog/2026-02-ai-advice-face-matching/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Human–AI teams should ideally perform better than either humans or AI alone. A key obstacle is &lt;strong&gt;overreliance&lt;/strong&gt;: people follow AI advice even when it is wrong. In this project led by Eesha Kokje, we tested whether changing &lt;strong&gt;when&lt;/strong&gt; AI advice is presented can help – using face matching, a task in which people decide whether two photos show the same person.&lt;/p&gt;




&lt;h4 id=&#34;what-we-did&#34;&gt;What we did
  &lt;a href=&#34;#what-we-did&#34;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/h4&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;strong&gt;three preregistered online experiments&lt;/strong&gt; (N = 80, 77, and 86), participants judged pairs of unfamiliar faces with the help of an AI system that was correct in 92.5% of cases. We compared the usual &lt;em&gt;concurrent&lt;/em&gt; presentation (advice shown together with the faces) with three &lt;em&gt;non-concurrent&lt;/em&gt; alternatives: binary advice &lt;strong&gt;on demand&lt;/strong&gt;, similarity ratings &lt;strong&gt;on demand&lt;/strong&gt;, and &lt;strong&gt;conditional advice&lt;/strong&gt; that was only shown when a participant&amp;rsquo;s initial decision contradicted the AI.&lt;/p&gt;




&lt;h4 id=&#34;what-we-found&#34;&gt;What we found
  &lt;a href=&#34;#what-we-found&#34;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/h4&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Overall accuracy did &lt;strong&gt;not differ&lt;/strong&gt; between concurrent and non-concurrent advice in any experiment.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;When participants &lt;strong&gt;requested&lt;/strong&gt; binary advice, they followed it more – although they requested it on only about a quarter of the trials.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;When they requested &lt;strong&gt;similarity ratings&lt;/strong&gt;, they followed the advice less: overreliance decreased, but so did reliance on correct advice. Similarity ratings were not more helpful than simple advice.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;With &lt;strong&gt;conditional advice&lt;/strong&gt;, participants followed the AI less often. They were more confident when rejecting incorrect advice, but less confident when accepting correct advice.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;figure class=&#34;ak-figure&#34;&gt;
&lt;img src=&#34;fig6_reliance.png&#34; alt=&#34;Bar charts showing agreement with AI advice and types of reliance for concurrent versus conditional advice&#34;&gt;
&lt;figcaption&gt;(a) Agreement with AI advice by advice accuracy and (b) types of reliance (AA = appropriate acceptance, AR = appropriate rejection, OR = overreliance, UR = underreliance) for concurrent versus conditional advice. Figure 6 from Kokje et al. (2026), &lt;em&gt;Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications&lt;/em&gt;, licensed under &lt;a href=&#34;https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/&#34;&gt;CC BY 4.0&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/figcaption&gt;
&lt;/figure&gt;




&lt;h4 id=&#34;what-this-means&#34;&gt;What this means
  &lt;a href=&#34;#what-this-means&#34;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/h4&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Non-concurrent advice can reduce overreliance on AI – but it is no free lunch, because people then also reject more correct advice. The goal should be &lt;strong&gt;calibrated&lt;/strong&gt; reliance, which may require combining presentation formats with information about when the AI is likely to be right.&lt;/p&gt;




&lt;h4 id=&#34;read-the-paper&#34;&gt;Read the paper
  &lt;a href=&#34;#read-the-paper&#34;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/h4&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Kokje, E., Lermer, E., &lt;strong&gt;Kleine, A.-K.&lt;/strong&gt;, &amp;amp; Gaube, S. (2026). AI-augmented decision-making in face matching: Comparing concurrent and non-concurrent advice presentation. &lt;em&gt;Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 11&lt;/em&gt;, 11. 
&lt;a href=&#34;https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-026-00707-z&#34; target=&#34;_blank&#34; rel=&#34;noopener&#34;&gt;https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-026-00707-z&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
    </item>
    
  </channel>
</rss>


