Explanations for autonomous vehicle (AV) decisions may build trust, however, explanations can contain errors. In a simulated driving study (n = 232), we tested how AV explanation errors, driving context characteristics (perceived harm and driving difficulty), and personal traits (prior trust and expertise) affected a passenger's comfort in relying on an AV, preference for control, confidence in the AV's ability, and explanation satisfaction. Errors negatively affected all outcomes. Surprisingly, despite identical driving, explanation errors reduced ratings of the AV's driving ability. Severity and potential harm amplified the negative impact of errors. Contextual harm and driving difficulty directly impacted outcome ratings and influenced the relationship between errors and outcomes. Prior trust and expertise were positively associated with outcome ratings. Results emphasize the need for accurate, contextually adaptive, and personalized AV explanations to foster trust, reliance, satisfaction, and confidence. We conclude with design, research, and deployment recommendations for trustworthy AV explanation systems.

Social media platforms enhance the propagation of online misinformation by providing large user bases with a quick means to share content. One way to disrupt the rapid dissemination of misinformation at scale is through warning tags, which label content as potentially false or misleading. However, past warning tag mitigation studies yield mixed results for diverse audiences. We hypothesize that personalizing warning tags to the individual characteristics of their diverse users may enhance mitigation effectiveness. To reach the goal of personalization, we need to understand how people differ and how those differences predict a person's attitudes and behaviors toward tags and tagged content. In this study, we leverage Amazon Mechanical Turk (n = 132) and undergraduate students (n = 112) to provide this foundational understanding. With all participants combined, we find attitudes towards warning tags and self-described behaviors are significantly influenced by factors such as Need for Cognitive Closure (NFCC), Political orientation, and Trust in Medical Scientists when controlled for covariates such as age and recruiting platform. Analyses of each sample further show that tag attitudes were influenced by Trust in Religious Leaders, and Big Five Inventory (BFI) traits for Openness and Conscientiousness. We synthesize these results into design insights and a future research agenda for more effective and personalized warning tags and misinformation mitigation strategies more generally.

We argue that the dominant approach to explainable AI for explaining image classification, annotating images with heatmaps, provides little value for users unfamiliar with deep learning. We argue that explainable AI for images should produce output like experts produce when communicating with one another, with apprentices, and with novices. We provide an expanded set of goals of explainable AI systems and propose a Turing Test for explainable AI.

Misinformation runs rampant on social media and has been tied to adverse health behaviors such as vaccine hesitancy. Crowdsourcing can be a means to detect and impede the spread of misinformation online. However, past studies have not deeply examined the individual characteristics - such as cognitive factors and biases - that predict crowdworker accuracy at identifying misinformation. In our study (n = 265), Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) workers and university students assessed the truthfulness and sentiment of COVID-19 related tweets as well as answered several surveys on personal characteristics. Results support the viability of crowdsourcing for assessing misinformation and content stance (i.e., sentiment) related to ongoing and politically-charged topics like the COVID-19 pandemic, however, alignment with experts depends on who is in the crowd. Specifically, we find that respondents with high Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) scores, conscientiousness, and trust in medical scientists are more aligned with experts while respondents with high Need for Cognitive Closure (NFCC) and those who lean politically conservative are less aligned with experts. We see differences between recruitment platforms as well, as our data shows university students are on average more aligned with experts than MTurk workers, most likely due to overall differences in participant characteristics on each platform. Results offer transparency into how crowd composition affects misinformation and stance assessment and have implications on future crowd recruitment and filtering practices.