Evaluating What Others Say: The Effect of Accuracy Assessment in Shaping Mental Models of AI Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forming accurate mental models that align with the actual behavior of an AI system is critical for successful user experience and interactions. One way to develop mental models is through information shared by other users. However, this social information can be inaccurate and there is a lack of research examining whether inaccurate social information influences the development of accurate mental models. To address this gap, our study investigates the impact of social information accuracy on mental models, as well as whether prompting users to validate the social information can mitigate the impact. We conducted a between-subject experiment with 39 crowdworkers where each participant interacted with our AI system that automates a workflow given a natural language sentence. We compared participants' mental models between those exposed to social information of how the AI system worked, both correct and incorrect, versus those who formed mental models through their own usage of the system. Specifically, we designed three experimental conditions: 1) validation condition that presented the social information followed by an opportunity to validate its accuracy through testing example utterances, 2) social information condition that presented the social information only, without the validation opportunity, and 3) control condition that allowed users to interact with the system without any social information. Our results revealed that the inclusion of the validation process had a positive impact on the development of accurate mental models, especially around the knowledge distribution aspect of mental models. Furthermore, participants were more willing to share comments with others when they had the chance to validate the social information. The impact of inaccurate social information on altering user mental models was found to be non-significant, while 69.23% of participants incorrectly judged the social information accuracy at least once. We discuss the implications of these findings for designing tools that support the validation of social information and thereby improve human-AI interactions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".