Bias in the Loop: How Humans Evaluate AI-Generated Suggestions

Human-AI collaboration increasingly drives decision-making across industries. While AI systems promise efficiency gains by providing automated suggestions for human review, these workflows can trigger cognitive biases that degrade performance. This paper reveals the psychological factors that determine when these collaborations succeed or fail.We conducted an experiment with 2,784 participants. A subset of participants completed a survey measuring their attitudes toward AI and automation. One week later, all participants were shown tables from corporate greenhouse gas emissions reports and asked to verify whether values extracted by an AI were accurate. Participants could accept the AI's suggestion or flag it as incorrect. We manipulated three aspects of this task: whether the AI's suggestions in the first three tables were all correct or all contained errors (to test whether early impressions of AI reliability shape later behavior), whether participants who flagged an error were also required to enter the correct value (adding effort to the act of correcting the AI), and whether participants were offered a bonus payment for high accuracy. Two patterns emerged that challenge conventional assumptions. First, when flagging an AI error required the additional step of typing a corrected value, participants made fewer corrections overall and more often accepted incorrect suggestions. Second, participants' pre-existing attitudes toward AI were the strongest predictor of performance, surpassing demographic factors in importance. Participants skeptical of AI detected errors more reliably and achieved higher accuracy, while those favorable toward automation more often accepted incorrect AI suggestions. Neither the bonus payment nor the accuracy of the AI's early suggestions meaningfully affected performance. These findings reveal that successful human-AI collaboration depends not only on algorithmic performance but also on who reviews AI outputs and how review processes are structured.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Harvard Data Science Review
Published
2026-03-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.0e98898d
Primary Topic
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Bias in the Loop: How Humans Evaluate AI-Generated Suggestions

Frauke Kreuter, Christoph A. Kern, Jacob Beck, Stephanie Eckman
Harvard Data Science Review
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
article

Bias in the Loop: How Humans Evaluate AI-Generated Suggestions

Frauke Kreuter, Christoph A. Kern, Jacob Beck, Stephanie Eckman
article en

Abstract

Human-AI collaboration increasingly drives decision-making across industries. While AI systems promise efficiency gains by providing automated suggestions for human review, these workflows can trigger cognitive biases that degrade performance. This paper reveals the psychological factors that determine when these collaborations succeed or fail.We conducted an experiment with 2,784 participants. A subset of participants completed a survey measuring their attitudes toward AI and automation. One week later, all participants were shown tables from corporate greenhouse gas emissions reports and asked to verify whether values extracted by an AI were accurate. Participants could accept the AI's suggestion or flag it as incorrect. We manipulated three aspects of this task: whether the AI's suggestions in the first three tables were all correct or all contained errors (to test whether early impressions of AI reliability shape later behavior), whether participants who flagged an error were also required to enter the correct value (adding effort to the act of correcting the AI), and whether participants were offered a bonus payment for high accuracy. Two patterns emerged that challenge conventional assumptions. First, when flagging an AI error required the additional step of typing a corrected value, participants made fewer corrections overall and more often accepted incorrect suggestions. Second, participants' pre-existing attitudes toward AI were the strongest predictor of performance, surpassing demographic factors in importance. Participants skeptical of AI detected errors more reliably and achieved higher accuracy, while those favorable toward automation more often accepted incorrect AI suggestions. Neither the bonus payment nor the accuracy of the AI's early suggestions meaningfully affected performance. These findings reveal that successful human-AI collaboration depends not only on algorithmic performance but also on who reviews AI outputs and how review processes are structured.

Harvard Data Science ReviewVol. 8(2)
University of Maryland, College Park (US), Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 28%
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
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.