Bias in the loop: How humans evaluate AI-generated suggestions

Abstract

Human-AI collaboration increasingly drives decision-making across industries, from medical diagnosis to content moderation. While AI systems promise efficiency gains by providing automated suggestions for human review, these workflows can trigger cognitive biases that degrade performance. We know little about the psychological factors that determine when these collaborations succeed or fail. We conducted a randomized experiment with 2,784 participants to examine how task design and individual characteristics shape human responses to AI-generated suggestions. Using a controlled annotation task, we manipulated three factors: AI suggestion quality in the first three instances, task burden through required corrections, and performance-based financial incentives. We collected demographics, attitudes toward AI, and behavioral data to assess four performance metrics: accuracy, correction activity, overcorrection, and undercorrection. Two patterns emerged that challenge conventional assumptions about human-AI collaboration. First, requiring corrections for flagged AI errors reduced engagement and increased the tendency to accept incorrect suggestions, demonstrating how cognitive shortcuts influence collaborative outcomes. Second, individual attitudes toward AI emerged as the strongest predictor of performance, surpassing demographic factors. Participants skeptical of AI detected errors more reliably and achieved higher accuracy, while those favorable toward automation exhibited dangerous overreliance on algorithmic suggestions. The 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. Effective human-AI collaborations require consideration of human psychology: selecting diverse evaluator samples, measuring attitudes, and designing workflows that counteract cognitive biases.