Search for: All records

Psychological research has identified different patterns individuals have while making decisions, such as vigilance (making decisions after thorough information gathering), hypervigilance (rushed and anxious decision-making), and buckpassing (deferring decisions to others). We examine whether these decision-making patterns affect peoples’ engagement with AIgenerated information in decision-making. In an online experiment with 810 participants tasked with distinguishing food facts from myths, we found that a higher buckpassing tendency was positively correlated with the likelihood of seeking AI information and reported reliance on AI, while being negatively correlated with the time spent reading AI explanations. In contrast, the higher a participant tended towards vigilance, the more carefully they scrutinized the AI’s information, as indicated by an increased time spent looking through the AI’s explanations. These findings suggest that a person’s decisionmaking pattern plays a significant role in their interactions with AI suggestions, which provides a new understanding of individual differences in AI-assisted decision-making. 

AI-supported writing technologies (AISWT) that provide grammatical suggestions, autocomplete sentences, or generate and rewrite text are now a regular feature integrated into many people's workflows. However, little is known about how people perceive the suggestions these tools provide. In this paper, we investigate how Black American users perceive AISWT, motivated by prior findings in natural language processing that highlight how the underlying large language models can contain racial biases. Using interviews and observational user studies with 13 Black American users of AISWT, we found a strong tradeoff between the perceived benefits of using AISWT to enhance their writing style and feeling like ''it wasn't built for us'''. Specifically, participants reported AISWT's failure to recognize commonly used names and expressions in African American Vernacular English, experiencing its corrections as hurtful and alienating and fearing it might further minoritize their culture. We end with a reflection on the tension between AISWT that fail to include Black American culture and language, and AISWT that attempt to mimic it, with attention to accuracy, authenticity, and the production of social difference. 

Mental health stigma prevents many individuals from receiving the appropriate care, and social psychology studies have shown that mental health tends to be overlooked in men. In this work, we investigate gendered mental health stigma in masked language models. In doing so, we operationalize mental health stigma by developing a framework grounded in psychology research: we use clinical psychology literature to curate prompts, then evaluate the models’ propensity to generate gendered words. We find that masked language models capture societal stigma about gender in mental health: models are consistently more likely to predict female subjects than male in sentences about having a mental health condition (32% vs. 19%), and this disparity is exacerbated for sentences that indicate treatment-seeking behavior. Furthermore, we find that different models capture dimensions of stigma differently for men and women, associating stereotypes like anger, blame, and pity more with women with mental health conditions than with men. In showing the complex nuances of models’ gendered mental health stigma, we demonstrate that context and overlapping dimensions of identity are important considerations when assessing computational models’ social biases.