IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/dpr/wpaper/1233.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Do people rely on ChatGPT more than their peers to detect fake news?

Author

Listed:
  • Yuhao Fu
  • Nobuyuki Hanaki

Abstract

In the era of rapidly advancing artificial intelligence (AI), understanding to what extent people rely on generative AI products (AI tools), such as ChatGPT, is crucial. This study experimentally investigates whether people rely more on AI tools than their human peers in assessing the authenticity of misinformation. We quantify participants’ degree of reliance using the weight of reference (WOR) and decompose it into two stages using the activation-integration model. Our results indicate that participants exhibit a higher reliance on ChatGPT than their peers, influenced significantly by the quality of the reference and their prior beliefs. The proportion of real parts did not impact the WOR. In addition, we found that the reference source affects both the activation and integration stages, but the quality of reference only influences the second stage.

Suggested Citation

  • Yuhao Fu & Nobuyuki Hanaki, 2024. "Do people rely on ChatGPT more than their peers to detect fake news?," ISER Discussion Paper 1233, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    • Handle: RePEc:dpr:wpaper:1233
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.iser.osaka-u.ac.jp/library/dp/2024/DP1233.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ben Greiner, 2015. "Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 114-125, July.
    2. Berkeley J. Dietvorst & Joseph P. Simmons & Cade Massey, 2018. "Overcoming Algorithm Aversion: People Will Use Imperfect Algorithms If They Can (Even Slightly) Modify Them," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(3), pages 1155-1170, March.
    3. Korinek, Anton, 2023. "Language Models and Cognitive Automation for Economic Research," CEPR Discussion Papers 17923, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    4. Nikhil Agarwal & Alex Moehring & Pranav Rajpurkar & Tobias Salz, 2023. "Combining Human Expertise with Artificial Intelligence: Experimental Evidence from Radiology," NBER Working Papers 31422, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Harvey, Nigel & Harries, Clare & Fischer, Ilan, 2000. "Using Advice and Assessing Its Quality," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 252-273, March.
    6. Logg, Jennifer M. & Minson, Julia A. & Moore, Don A., 2019. "Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 90-103.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Keding, Christoph & Meissner, Philip, 2021. "Managerial overreliance on AI-augmented decision-making processes: How the use of AI-based advisory systems shapes choice behavior in R&D investment decisions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    2. Daniel Woods & Mustafa Abdallah & Saurabh Bagchi & Shreyas Sundaram & Timothy Cason, 2022. "Network defense and behavioral biases: an experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(1), pages 254-286, February.
    3. Mahmud, Hasan & Islam, A.K.M. Najmul & Ahmed, Syed Ishtiaque & Smolander, Kari, 2022. "What influences algorithmic decision-making? A systematic literature review on algorithm aversion," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    4. Bryce McLaughlin & Jann Spiess, 2022. "Algorithmic Assistance with Recommendation-Dependent Preferences," Papers 2208.07626, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    5. Markus Jung & Mischa Seiter, 2021. "Towards a better understanding on mitigating algorithm aversion in forecasting: an experimental study," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 495-516, December.
    6. Zhu, Yimin & Zhang, Jiemin & Wu, Jifei & Liu, Yingyue, 2022. "AI is better when I'm sure: The influence of certainty of needs on consumers' acceptance of AI chatbots," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 642-652.
    7. Merle, Aurélie & St-Onge, Anik & Sénécal, Sylvain, 2022. "Does it pay to be honest? The effect of retailer-provided negative feedback on consumers’ product choice and shopping experience," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 532-543.
    8. Benedikt Berger & Martin Adam & Alexander Rühr & Alexander Benlian, 2021. "Watch Me Improve—Algorithm Aversion and Demonstrating the Ability to Learn," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 63(1), pages 55-68, February.
    9. Ekaterina Jussupow & Kai Spohrer & Armin Heinzl & Joshua Gawlitza, 2021. "Augmenting Medical Diagnosis Decisions? An Investigation into Physicians’ Decision-Making Process with Artificial Intelligence," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 713-735, September.
    10. Christoph Keding, 2021. "Understanding the interplay of artificial intelligence and strategic management: four decades of research in review," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 71(1), pages 91-134, February.
    11. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:3:p:449-451 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Scott Schanke & Gordon Burtch & Gautam Ray, 2021. "Estimating the Impact of “Humanizing” Customer Service Chatbots," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 736-751, September.
    13. Peng, Leiqing & Luo, Mengting & Guo, Yulang, 2023. "Deposit AI as the “invisible hand†to make the resale easier: A moderated mediation model," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    14. Andreas Fügener & Jörn Grahl & Alok Gupta & Wolfgang Ketter, 2022. "Cognitive Challenges in Human–Artificial Intelligence Collaboration: Investigating the Path Toward Productive Delegation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(2), pages 678-696, June.
    15. Alexia GAUDEUL & Caterina GIANNETTI, 2023. "Trade-offs in the design of financial algorithms," Discussion Papers 2023/288, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    16. Zulia Gubaydullina & Jan René Judek & Marco Lorenz & Markus Spiwoks, 2022. "Comparing Different Kinds of Influence on an Algorithm in Its Forecasting Process and Their Impact on Algorithm Aversion," Businesses, MDPI, vol. 2(4), pages 1-23, October.
    17. Mahmud, Hasan & Islam, A.K.M. Najmul & Mitra, Ranjan Kumar, 2023. "What drives managers towards algorithm aversion and how to overcome it? Mitigating the impact of innovation resistance through technology readiness," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    18. Lieberman, Alicea & Schroeder, Juliana & Amir, On, 2022. "A voice inside my head: The psychological and behavioral consequences of auditory technologies," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    19. Chugunova, Marina & Sele, Daniela, 2022. "We and It: An interdisciplinary review of the experimental evidence on how humans interact with machines," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    20. Greiner, Ben & Grünwald, Philipp & Lindner, Thomas & Lintner, Georg & Wiernsperger, Martin, 2024. "Incentives, Framing, and Reliance on Algorithmic Advice: An Experimental Study," Department for Strategy and Innovation Working Paper Series 01/2024, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    21. Christiane B. Haubitz & Cedric A. Lehmann & Andreas Fügener & Ulrich W. Thonemann, 2021. "The Risk of Algorithm Transparency: How Algorithm Complexity Drives the Effects on Use of Advice," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 078, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:dpr:wpaper:1233. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Librarian (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/isosujp.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.