Super-intelligence or Superstition? Exploring Psychological Factors Underlying Unwarranted Belief in AI Predictions
Abstract
Could belief in AI predictions be just another form of superstition? This study investigates psychological factors that influence belief in AI predictions about personal behavior, comparing it to belief in astrology- and personality-based predictions. Through an experiment with 238 participants, we examined how cognitive style, paranormal beliefs, AI attitudes, personality traits, and other factors affect perceived validity, reliability, usefulness, and personalization of predictions from different sources. Our findings reveal that belief in AI predictions is positively correlated with belief in predictions based on astrology and personality psychology. Notably, paranormal beliefs and positive attitudes about AI significantly increased perceived validity, reliability, usefulness, and personalization of AI predictions. Conscientiousness was negatively correlated with belief in predictions across all sources, and interest in the prediction topic increased believability across predictions. Surprisingly, we found no evidence that cognitive style has an impact on belief in fictitious AI-generated predictions. These results highlight the "rational superstition" phenomenon in AI, where belief is driven more by mental heuristics and intuition than critical evaluation. This research advances our understanding of the psychology of human-AI interaction, offering insights into designing and promoting AI systems that foster appropriate trust and skepticism, critical for responsible integration in an increasingly AI-driven world.
Study specs
- Discipline
- Psychology,Artificial Intelligence
- Year
- 2024
- Human Data Platform
- Prolific
- Source
- View Source Google Scholar
Peer Review & Critical Discussion
Potential Selection Bias in 2023 Cohort
The participant pool shows a concerning overrepresentation of users from high-income demographics. Looking at Table 3, we can see that 78% of respondents had annual incomes above $75k, which significantly limits the generalizability of these findings to broader populations.
Non-naive Participants Issue
I've noticed a methodological concern regarding participant naivety. Given that Prolific users often complete multiple studies, there's a real risk that participants had prior exposure to similar experimental paradigms, which could confound the results.
RLHF Applicability to This Study Design
The implications for RLHF training pipelines are understated. If we accept the authors' conclusions about preference stability, this has direct consequences for how we should structure reward model training. The temporal decay effect described in Section 4.2 is particularly relevant.
Verify your expertise to join discussion
Create an account and verify your credentials to participate in peer discussions.