Search for: All records

When people make decisions, they act in a way that is either automatic (“rote”), or more thoughtful (“reflective”). But do people notice when others are behaving in a rote way, and do they care? We examine the detection of rote behavior and its consequences in U.S. adults, focusing specifically on pedagogy and learning. We establish repetitiveness as a cue for rote behavior (Experiment 1), and find that rote people are seen as worse teachers (Experiment 2). We also find that the more a person's feedback seems similar across groups (indicating greater rote‐ness), the more negatively their teaching is evaluated (Experiment 3). A word‐embedding analysis of an open‐response task shows people naturally cluster rote and reflective teachers into different semantic categories (Experiment 4). We also show that repetitiveness can be decoupled from perceptions of rote‐ness given contextual explanation (Experiment 5). Finally, we establish two additional cues to rote behavior that can be tied to quality of teaching (Experiment 6). These results empirically show that people detect and care about scripted behaviors in pedagogy, and suggest an important extension to formal frameworks of social reasoning. 

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems have begun to be deployed in high-stakes contexts, including autonomous driving and medical diagnosis. In contexts such as these, the consequences of system failures can be devastating. It is therefore vital that researchers and policy-makers have a full understanding of the capabilities and weaknesses of AI systems so that they can make informed decisions about where these systems are safe to use and how they might be improved. Unfortunately, current approaches to AI evaluation make it exceedingly difficult to build such an understanding, for two key reasons. First, aggregate metrics make it hard to predict how a system will perform in a particular situation. Second, the instance-by-instance evaluation results that could be used to unpack these aggregate metrics are rarely made available ( 1 ). Here, we propose a path forward in which results are presented in more nuanced ways and instance-by-instance evaluation results are made publicly available.