Bitte verwenden Sie diesen Link, um diese Publikation zu zitieren, oder auf sie als Internetquelle zu verweisen: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/335200 
Erscheinungsjahr: 
2025
Schriftenreihe/Nr.: 
Helsinki GSE Discussion Papers No. 52
Verlag: 
Helsinki Graduate School of Economics, Helsinki
Zusammenfassung: 
People often draw inferences from sequences of past performance, sometimes perceiving patterns even in random outcomes. This has fueled debates regarding phenomena such as the hot hand and gambler's fallacies. With the growing use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems for forecasting and decision support, it becomes important to understand how people form beliefs from sequences of outcomes attributed to such systems. We report results from a preregistered online experiment (N = 900) in which identical outcome sequences were attributed to an AI model, a human forecaster, or a random device. Belief updating in response to higher prior success rates was strongest for human forecasters, weakest for random devices, and intermediate for AI. Reactions to streaks were similar for AI and human sources, in contrast to the strong reversal expectations observed for random sequences. Performance feedback did not alter the relative reliance on AI versus human sources. Overall, AI is perceived as quasi-human-imbued with some intentionality, yet not fully agentic.
Schlagwörter: 
Artificial intelligence
beliefs
hot hand
decision analysis
experimental economics
JEL: 
C91
D81
D83
D91
ISBN: 
978-952-7543-51-1
Dokumentart: 
Working Paper

Datei(en):
Datei
Größe
3.25 MB





Publikationen in EconStor sind urheberrechtlich geschützt.