# Human-AI Interactions in Public Sector Decision-Making: "Automation Bias" and "Selective Adherence" to Algorithmic Advice

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.02381 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.02381/

## Key facts

- Cited by 22 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 0 of its 76 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 3 Mar 2021.

## Built on by (most cited first, 22 of 22)

- [Evaluating Human-AI Collaboration: A Review and Methodological Framework](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.19098/) (2024)
- [The Rise of the AI Co-Pilot: Lessons for Design from Aviation and Beyond](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.14713/) (2023)
- [Modulating Language Model Experiences through Frictions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.12804/) (2024)
- [The European AI Liability Directives -- Critique of a Half-Hearted Approach and Lessons for the Future](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.13960/) (2022)
- [Cost-Sensitive Learning to Defer to Multiple Experts with Workload Constraints](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.06906/) (2024)
- [Formalising Human-in-the-Loop: Computational Reductions, Failure Modes, and Legal-Moral Responsibility](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.10426/) (2025)
- [AI, Meet Human: Learning Paradigms for Hybrid Decision Making Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.06287/) (2024)
- [The AI Double Standard: Humans Judge All AIs for the Actions of One](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.06040/) (2024)
- [Human-AI Governance (HAIG): A Trust-Utility Approach](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.01651/) (2025)
- [FiFAR: A Fraud Detection Dataset for Learning to Defer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.13218/) (2023)
- [Towards Adaptive Categories: Dimensional Governance for Agentic AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.11579/) (2025)
- [LLM-D12: A Dual-Dimensional Scale of Instrumental and Relational Dependencies on Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.06874/) (2025)
- [Fairness Implications of Heterogeneous Treatment Effect Estimation with Machine Learning Methods in Policy-making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.00805/) (2023)
- [Collaborative Causal Sensemaking: Closing the Complementarity Gap in Human-AI Decision Support](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.07801/) (2025)
- [Evaluation of Large Language Models in Legal Applications: Challenges, Methods, and Future Directions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.15267/) (2026)
- [Unequal Uncertainty: Rethinking Algorithmic Interventions for Mitigating Discrimination from AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.07872/) (2025)
- [SHARP: Social Harm Analysis via Risk Profiles for Measuring Inequities in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.21235/) (2026)
- [Power Echoes: Investigating Moderation Biases in Online Power-Asymmetric Conflicts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.01457/) (2026)
- [Compliance-by-Construction Argument Graphs: Using Generative AI to Produce Evidence-Linked Formal Arguments for Certification-Grade Accountability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.04103/) (2026)
- [Algorithmic Administration and the EU AI Act: Legal Principles for Public Sector Use of AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.22765/) (2026)
- [From Democracies to Autocracies: How AI Systems Enable Authoritarianism by Design](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.17286/) (2026)
- [A Technical Typology of AI Systems in Public Administration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.31755/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Artificial intelligence algorithms are increasingly adopted as decisional aides by public bodies, with the promise of overcoming biases of human decision-makers. At the same time, they may introduce new biases in the human-algorithm interaction. Drawing on psychology and public administration literatures, we investigate two key biases: overreliance on algorithmic advice even in the face of warning signals from other sources (automation bias), and selective adoption of algorithmic advice when this corresponds to stereotypes (selective adherence). We assess these via three experimental studies conducted in the NetherlandsWe discuss the implications of our findings for public sector decision making in the age of automation. Overall, our study speaks to potential negative effects of automation of the administrative state for already vulnerable and disadvantaged citizens.