Ralph Hertwig

Julian Berger, Jason W. Burton, Ralph Hertwig et al.

The collaboration between humans and artificial intelligence (AI) holds the promise of achieving superior outcomes compared to either acting alone-a phenomenon called human-AI synergy. Nevertheless, our understanding of the conditions that facilitate such human-AI synergy when humans are advised by AI remains limited. A recent meta-analysis showed that, on average, human-AI combinations do not outperform the better individual agent. We argue that this pessimistic conclusion arises from insufficient attention to human learning in the experimental designs. To substantiate this claim, we re-analyzed all 74 studies included in the original meta-analysis, yielding two new findings. First, most previous research overlooked design features that foster human learning, such as providing outcome feedback to participants. Second, our re-analysis demonstrated that studies providing outcome feedback show tentatively higher synergy than those without outcome feedback. Crucially, feedback paired with AI explanations tends to yield positive synergy, while explanations without feedback were linked to negative synergy-indicating that explanations increase synergy only when humans can learn to verify the AI's reliability through feedback. We conclude that the current literature underestimates the potential of human-AI collaboration because it predominantly relies on paradigms that do not facilitate human learning, thus hindering humans from effectively adapting their collaboration strategies. We therefore advocate for a paradigm shift in human-AI interaction research that explicitly addresses human learning and thus enhances our understanding of and support for successful human-AI collaboration.

Xinyi Zhao, Anna I. Thoma, Ralph Hertwig et al.

Women comprise the majority of students and early-career scholars in psychology, yet they are less likely to remain active in research over time. This pattern raises a central question: At what stages of academic careers do women disproportionately leave academia, and what factors drive their attrition? Using large-scale bibliometric data tracking 78,216 psychologists who began publishing between 2000 and 2014, we examine gender differences in research career attrition operationalized through publishing activity across the full trajectory from entry onward. Although women accounted for more than 60\% of new entrants, they experienced higher attrition rates than men, with the gender gap peaking approximately five years after first publication. Early-career performance, particularly first-authored publications, was the strongest predictor of subsequent retention, whereas last-authored publications were most closely associated with continued activity at later career stages. Collaboration patterns and institutional context also shaped career persistence, though less strongly than publication indicators. Notably, gender differences in research attrition persisted even after accounting for these career determinants, especially during early career stages. These findings suggest that gender inequality in psychology is driven less by recruitment than by differential retention over time. Addressing early-career vulnerability may therefore be essential to achieving equitable representation in senior academic leadership within the discipline.

Nils Köbis, Philipp Lorenz-Spreen, Tamer Ajaj et al.

The increasing prevalence of image-altering filters on social media and video conferencing technologies has raised concerns about the ethical and psychological implications of using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to manipulate our perception of others. In this study, we specifically investigate the potential impact of blur filters, a type of appearance-altering technology, on individuals' behavior towards others. Our findings consistently demonstrate a significant increase in selfish behavior directed towards individuals whose appearance is blurred, suggesting that blur filters can facilitate moral disengagement through depersonalization. These results emphasize the need for broader ethical discussions surrounding AI technologies that modify our perception of others, including issues of transparency, consent, and the awareness of being subject to appearance manipulation by others. We also emphasize the importance of anticipatory experiments in informing the development of responsible guidelines and policies prior to the widespread adoption of such technologies.

Arend Hintze, Randal S. Olson, Christoph Adami et al.

Risk aversion is a common behavior universal to humans and animals alike. Economists have traditionally defined risk preferences by the curvature of the utility function. Psychologists and behavioral economists also make use of concepts such as loss aversion and probability weighting to model risk aversion. Neurophysiological evidence suggests that loss aversion has its origins in relatively ancient neural circuitries (e.g., ventral striatum). Could there thus be an evolutionary origin to risk avoidance? We study this question by evolving strategies that adapt to play the equivalent mean payoff gamble. We hypothesize that risk aversion in the equivalent mean payoff gamble is beneficial as an adaptation to living in small groups, and find that a preference for risk averse strategies only evolves in small populations of less than 1,000 individuals, while agents exhibit no such strategy preference in larger populations. Further, we discover that risk aversion can also evolve in larger populations, but only when the population is segmented into small groups of around 150 individuals. Finally, we observe that risk aversion only evolves when the gamble is a rare event that has a large impact on the individual's fitness. These findings align with earlier reports that humans lived in small groups for a large portion of their evolutionary history. As such, we suggest that rare, high-risk, high-payoff events such as mating and mate competition could have driven the evolution of risk averse behavior in humans living in small groups.