Jiangen He

Jiangen He, Wanqi Zhang, Jessica K. Barfield

As robots increasingly enter the workforce, human-robot interaction (HRI) must address how implicit social biases influence user preferences. This paper investigates how users rationalize their selections of robots varying in skin tone and anthropomorphic features across different occupations. By qualitatively analyzing 4,146 open-ended justifications from 1,038 participants, we map the reasoning frameworks driving robot color selection across four professional contexts. We developed and validated a comprehensive, multidimensional coding scheme via human--AI consensus ($κ= 0.73$). Our results demonstrate that while utilitarian \textit{Functionalism} is the dominant justification strategy (52\%), participants systematically adapted these practical rationales to align with established racial and occupational stereotypes. Furthermore, we reveal that bias frequently operates beneath conscious rationalization: exposure to racial stereotype primes significantly shifted participants' color choices, yet their spoken justifications remained masked by standard affective or task-related reasoning. We also found that demographic backgrounds significantly shape justification strategies, and that robot shape strongly modulates color interpretation. Specifically, as robots become highly anthropomorphic, users increasingly retreat from functional reasoning toward \textit{Machine-Centric} de-racialization. Through these empirical results, we provide actionable design implications to help reduce the perpetuation of societal biases in future workforce robots.

Jiqun Liu, Jiangen He

Can AI be cognitively biased in automated information judgment tasks? Despite recent progresses in measuring and mitigating social and algorithmic biases in AI and large language models (LLMs), it is not clear to what extent LLMs behave "rationally", or if they are also vulnerable to human cognitive bias triggers. To address this open problem, our study, consisting of a crowdsourcing user experiment and a LLM-enabled simulation experiment, compared the credibility assessments by LLM and human judges under potential decoy effects in an information retrieval (IR) setting, and empirically examined the extent to which LLMs are cognitively biased in COVID-19 medical (mis)information assessment tasks compared to traditional human assessors as a baseline. The results, collected from a between-subject user experiment and a LLM-enabled replicate experiment, demonstrate that 1) Larger and more recent LLMs tend to show a higher level of consistency and accuracy in distinguishing credible information from misinformation. However, they are more likely to give higher ratings for misinformation due to the presence of a more salient, decoy misinformation result; 2) While decoy effect occurred in both human and LLM assessments, the effect is more prevalent across different conditions and topics in LLM judgments compared to human credibility ratings. In contrast to the generally assumed "rationality" of AI tools, our study empirically confirms the cognitive bias risks embedded in LLM agents, evaluates the decoy impact on LLMs against human credibility assessments, and thereby highlights the complexity and importance of debiasing AI agents and developing psychology-informed AI audit techniques and policies for automated judgment tasks and beyond.

Jiangen He, Jiqun Liu

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in decision-making, yet their susceptibility to cognitive biases remains a pressing challenge. This study explores how personality traits influence these biases and evaluates the effectiveness of mitigation strategies across various model architectures. Our findings identify six prevalent cognitive biases, while the sunk cost and group attribution biases exhibit minimal impact. Personality traits play a crucial role in either amplifying or reducing biases, significantly affecting how LLMs respond to debiasing techniques. Notably, Conscientiousness and Agreeableness may generally enhance the efficacy of bias mitigation strategies, suggesting that LLMs exhibiting these traits are more receptive to corrective measures. These findings address the importance of personality-driven bias dynamics and highlight the need for targeted mitigation approaches to improve fairness and reliability in AI-assisted decision-making.

Jiangen He, Jiqun Liu

Conversational search systems increasingly provide source citations, yet how citation or source presentation formats influence user engagement remains unclear. We conducted a crowdsourcing user experiment with 394 participants comparing four source presentation designs that varied citation visibility and accessibility: collapsible lists, hover cards, footer lists, and aligned sidebars.High-visibility interfaces generated substantially more hovering on sources, though clicking remained infrequent across all conditions. While interface design showed limited effects on user experience and perception measures, it significantly influenced knowledge, interest, and agreement changes. High-visibility interfaces initially reduced knowledge gain and interest, but these positive effects emerged with increasing source usage. The sidebar condition uniquely increased agreement change. Our findings demonstrate that source presentation alone may not enhance engagement and can even reduce it when insufficient sources are provided.

Jiangen He

Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly being adopted as research assistants, particularly for literature review and reference recommendation, yet little is known about whether they introduce demographic bias into citation workflows. This study systematically investigates gender bias in LLM-driven reference selection using controlled experiments with pseudonymous author names. We evaluate several LLMs (GPT-4o, GPT-4o-mini, Claude Sonnet, and Claude Haiku) by varying gender composition within candidate reference pools and analyzing selection patterns across fields. Our results reveal two forms of bias: a persistent preference for male-authored references and a majority-group bias that favors whichever gender is more prevalent in the candidate pool. These biases are amplified in larger candidate pools and only modestly attenuated by prompt-based mitigation strategies. Field-level analysis indicates that bias magnitude varies across scientific domains, with social sciences showing the least bias. Our findings indicate that LLMs can reinforce or exacerbate existing gender imbalances in scholarly recognition. Effective mitigation strategies are needed to avoid perpetuating existing gender disparities in scientific citation practices before integrating LLMs into high-stakes academic workflows.

Jiangen He, Chaomei Chen

Researchers may describe different aspects of past scientific publications in their publications and the descriptions may keep changing in the evolution of science. The diverse and changing descriptions (i.e., citation context) on a publication characterize the impact and contributions of the past publication. In this article, we aim to provide an approach to understanding the changing and complex roles of a publication characterized by its citation context. We described a method to represent the publications' dynamic roles in science community in different periods as a sequence of vectors by training temporal embedding models. The temporal representations can be used to quantify how much the roles of publications changed and interpret how they changed. Our study in the biomedical domain shows that our metric on the changes of publications' roles is stable over time at the population level but significantly distinguish individuals. We also show the interpretability of our methods by a concrete example.