Human Factors in AI-Driven Cybersecurity: Cognitive Biases and Trust Issues

The integration of AI in cybersecurity promises enhanced threat detection and response capabilities, yet its adoption is hindered by human factors, particularly cognitive biases and trust issues. This study investigates how cognitive biases, such as automation bias (47%) and confirmation bias (37%), influence security analysts’ trust in AI-driven tools, drawing on Kahneman’s dual-process theory. Through qualitative interviews with 19 cybersecurity professionals and a comparative analysis of AI solutions from Microsoft, CrowdStrike, Darktrace, and IBM, we identify key barriers to adoption, including explainability gaps and high false positive rates. Findings reveal that 65% of analysts express skepticism toward AI alerts, favoring hybrid human–AI models (79%) over full automation. We propose strategies like Explainable AI (XAI), bias-awareness training, and adaptive trust calibration to mitigate biases and foster trust. These insights highlight the need for user-centric AI designs that balance technical performance with human cognitive realities in cybersecurity operations.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Digital Threats Research and Practice
Published
2025-08-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1145/3759260
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.37
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Human Factors in AI-Driven Cybersecurity: Cognitive Biases and Trust Issues

Kirsi Helkala, Lasse Øverlier, Raymond André Hagen
1 citations
Digital Threats Research and Practice
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
2.37
article

Human Factors in AI-Driven Cybersecurity: Cognitive Biases and Trust Issues

Kirsi Helkala, Lasse Øverlier, Raymond André Hagen
article en
1 citations

Abstract

The integration of AI in cybersecurity promises enhanced threat detection and response capabilities, yet its adoption is hindered by human factors, particularly cognitive biases and trust issues. This study investigates how cognitive biases, such as automation bias (47%) and confirmation bias (37%), influence security analysts’ trust in AI-driven tools, drawing on Kahneman’s dual-process theory. Through qualitative interviews with 19 cybersecurity professionals and a comparative analysis of AI solutions from Microsoft, CrowdStrike, Darktrace, and IBM, we identify key barriers to adoption, including explainability gaps and high false positive rates. Findings reveal that 65% of analysts express skepticism toward AI alerts, favoring hybrid human–AI models (79%) over full automation. We propose strategies like Explainable AI (XAI), bias-awareness training, and adaptive trust calibration to mitigate biases and foster trust. These insights highlight the need for user-centric AI designs that balance technical performance with human cognitive realities in cybersecurity operations.

Digital Threats Research and PracticeVol. 6(4)
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO), Norwegian Environment Agency (NO), Direktoratet for medisinske produkter (NO), Norwegian Defence University College (NO)
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
2.37
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Human Factors in AI-Driven Cybersecurity: Cognitive Biases and Trust Issues — Kirsi Helkala, Lasse Øverlier, et al. · Digital Threats Research and Practice (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS