Acceptance of Medical Treatment Regimens Provided by AI vs. Human
Source abstract
Abstract
Along with the increasing development of information technology, the interaction between artificial intelligence and humans is becoming even more frequent. In this context, a phenomenon called “medical AI aversion” has emerged, in which the same behaviors of medical AI and humans elicited different responses. Medical AI aversion can be understood in terms of the way that people attribute mind capacities to different targets. It has been demonstrated that when medical professionals dehumanize patients—making fewer mental attributions to patients and, to some extent, not perceiving and treating them as full human—it leads to more painful and effective treatment options. From the patient’s perspective, will painful treatment options be unacceptable when they perceive the doctor as a human but disregard his or her own mental abilities? Is it possible to accept a painful treatment plan because the doctor is artificial intelligence? Based on the above, the current study investigated the above questions and the phenomenon of medical AI aversion in a medical context. Through three experiments it was found that: (1) human doctor was accepted more when patients were faced with the same treatment plan; (2) there was an interactional effect between the treatment subject and the nature of the treatment plan, and, therefore, affected the acceptance of the treatment plan; and (3) experience capacities mediated the relationship between treatment provider (AI vs. human) and treatment plan acceptance. Overall, this study attempted to explain the phenomenon of medical AI aversion from the mind perception theory and the findings are revealing at the applied level for guiding the more rational use of AI and how to persuade patients.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education · Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations · Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
Department of Psychology, School of Philosophy, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430079, China
Funding
National Natural Science Foundation of China · National Social Science Foundation of China
References (70)
Show source-provided references
1. Parkin, S. (2021, December 22). The Artificially Intelligent Doctor Will Hear You Now–MIT Technology Review. Available online: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/600868/the-artificially-intelligent-doctor-will-hear-you-now/.
2. Self-taught artificial intelligence beats doctors at predicting heart attacks
3. Telehealth transformation: COVID-19 and the rise of virtual care10.1093/jamia/ocaa067 ↗
4. Covid-19 and Health Care’s Digital Revolution10.1056/NEJMp2005835 ↗
5. Machine Learning—Based Prediction of Clinical Outcomes for Children During Emergency Department Triage10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.6937 ↗
6. Could artificial intelligence make doctors obsolete?10.1136/bmj.k4563 ↗
7. Public Perception of Artificial Intelligence in Medical Care: Content Analysis of Social Media10.2196/16649 ↗
8. Dehumanization: An Integrative Review10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4 ↗
9. Reference standards, judges, and comparison subjects: Roles for experts in evaluating system performance10.1136/jamia.2002.0090001 ↗
10. Factors influencing the use of a decision rule in a probabilistic task10.1016/0749-5978(86)90046-4 ↗
11. Understanding, explaining, and utilizing medical artificial intelligence10.1038/s41562-021-01146-0 ↗
12. Do patients trust computers?10.1002/bdm.542 ↗
13. Provider response to computer-based care suggestions for chronic heart failure10.1097/01.mlr.0000160378.53326.f3 ↗
14. Consumer reactions to professionals who use decision aids10.1108/EJM-07-2013-0390 ↗
15. The Efficacy of Using Judgmental versus Quantitative Forecasting Methods in Practice10.1016/j.omega.2003.08.007 ↗
16. Human Decisions and Machine Predictions
17. The Effects of Decision Consequences on Auditors’ Reliance on Decision Aids in Audit Planning10.1006/obhd.1997.2720 ↗
18. Mechanical versus clinical data combination in selection and admissions decisions: A meta-analysis10.1037/a0034156 ↗
19. Sinha, R., and Swearingen, K. (2001). Comparing Recommendations Made by Online Systems and Friends. Personalisation and Recommender Systems in Digital Libraries (DELOS 2001), Second DELOS Network of Excellence Workshop.
20. Perceived fairness of web-based applicant screening procedures: Weighing the rules of justice and the role of individual differences. Human Resource Management: Published in Cooperation with the School of Business Administration10.1002/hrm.20011 ↗
21. The relative influence of advice from human experts and statistical methods on forecast adjustments10.1002/bdm.637 ↗
22. People are averse to machines making moral decisions10.1016/j.cognition.2018.08.003 ↗
23. Ford, M. (2015). The Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of Mass Unemployment, Oneworld.
24. Kramer, M.F., Borg, J.S., Conitzer, V., and Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2018, January 13). When Do People Want AI to Make Decisions?. Proceedings of the First Annual AAAI/ACM Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Ethics, and Society (AIES-18), New Orleans, LA, USA.10.1145/3278721.3278752 ↗
25. Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err10.1037/xge0000033 ↗
26. Information Displays and Decision Processes10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00265.x ↗
27. Validity of four pain intensity rating scales10.1016/j.pain.2011.07.005 ↗
28. The evolution of preoperative holding areas—Sciencedirect10.1016/j.jopan.2009.01.005 ↗
29. Day surgery: Patients’ felt abandoned during the preoperative wait10.1111/j.1365-2702.2008.02374.x ↗
30. Postoperative pain experience: Results from a national survey suggest postoperative pain continues to be undermanaged10.1213/01.ANE.0000068822.10113.9E ↗
31. Clinical versus Actuarial Judgment10.1126/science.2648573 ↗
32. Resistance to Medical Artificial Intelligence10.1093/jcr/ucz013 ↗
33. What People Want from Their Professionals: Attitudes Toward Decision-Making Strategies10.1002/bdm.741 ↗
34. Wegner, D.M., and Gray, K. (2017). The Mind Club, Viking.
35. Dimensions of Mind Perception10.1126/science.1134475 ↗
36. Feeling robots and human zombies: Mind perception and the uncanny valley10.1016/j.cognition.2012.06.007 ↗
37. Doctors are seen as Godlike: Moral typecasting in medicine10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113008 ↗
38. The “empty vessel” physician10.1177/1948550615597976 ↗
39. Logg, J., Minson, J., and Moore, D.A. (2017). Algorithm Appreciation: People Prefer Algorithmic to Human Judgment, Social Science Electronic.
40. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences10.3758/BF03193146 ↗
41. Power increases dehumanization10.1177/1368430210370042 ↗
42. Hayes, A.F. (2021, December 16). PROCESS: A Versatile Computational Tool for Observed Variable Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Modeling. Available online: http://www.Afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf.
43. Meehl, P.E. (1954). Clinical Versus Statistical Prediction: A Theoretical Analysis and a Review of the Evidence, University of Minnesota Press.10.1037/11281-000 ↗
44. Chen, L., Mislove, A., and Wilson, C. (2016, January 11–15). An Empirical Analysis of Algorithmic Pricing on Amazon Marketplace. Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on World Wide Web—WWW ’16, Montreal, QC, Canada.10.1145/2872427.2883089 ↗
45. A solution method for a two-layer sustainable supply chain distribution model10.1016/j.cor.2014.06.015 ↗
46. Reform predictive policing10.1038/541458a ↗
47. A genetic algorithm for scheduling staff of mixed skills under multi-criteria10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00391-4 ↗
48. A simple and better algorithm to solve the vendor managed inventory control system of multi-product multi-constraint economic order quantity model10.1016/j.eswa.2011.09.057 ↗
49. Understanding perception of algorithmic decisions: Fairness, trust, and emotion in response to algorithmic management10.1177/2053951718756684 ↗
50. Malle, B.F., Scheutz, M.J., Arnold, T., Voiklis, J., and Cusimano, C. (2015, January 2–5). Sacrifice One for the Good of Many? People Apply Different Moral Norms to Human and Robot Agents. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Portland, OR, USA.10.1145/2696454.2696458 ↗
51. On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864 ↗
52. The essence of innocence: Consequences of dehumanizing Black children10.1037/a0035663 ↗
53. From sex objects to human beings: Masking sexual body parts and humanization as moderators to women’s objectification10.1177/0361684315580125 ↗
54. Dehumanization of older people: The evaluation of hostile work environments10.1037/law0000013 ↗
55. Dehumanization and Infrahumanization10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115045 ↗
56. The mind in the machine: Anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle10.1016/j.jesp.2014.01.005 ↗
57. Almost human: Anthropomorphism increases trust resilience in cognitive agents10.1037/xap0000092 ↗
58. Recent research on dehumanization10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.03.009 ↗
59. Relationship between workplace spirituality with Work Performance, Well-being and Health
60. Dehumanization and self-reported proclivity to torture prisoners of war10.1016/j.jesp.2012.11.006 ↗
61. Ownership, governance and firm performance in Malaysia10.1111/j.1467-8683.2007.00555.x ↗
62. Coping mechanisms of physicians who routinely work with dying patients10.2190/950H-U076-T5JB-X6HN ↗
63. They see us as less than human: Metadehumanization predicts intergroup conflict via reciprocal dehumanization10.1037/pspa0000044 ↗
64. Deliberating on Social Targets’ Goal Instrumentality Leads to Dehumanization: An Experimental Investigation10.1521/soco.2014.32.2.181 ↗
65. Clinical versus mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis10.1037/1040-3590.12.1.19 ↗
66. Social support and recovery from surgery10.1037/0278-6133.8.2.221 ↗
67. Think: Inferring cognitive status from subtle behaviors
68. Measuring the impact of diagnostic decision support on the quality of clinical decision making: Development of a reliable and valid composite score10.1197/jamia.M1338 ↗
69. Behavioral and neural evidence on consumer responses to hu-man doctors and medical artificial intelligence10.1002/mar.21445 ↗
70. Diagnostic Decision Support Systems: How to Determine the Gold Standard?10.1197/jamia.M1416 ↗