Date
Publisher
arXiv
As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes integral to the society, the ability
to critically evaluate AI-generated content is increasingly vital. On the
context of management education, we examine how academic skills, cognitive
traits, and AI scepticism influence students' ability to detect factually
incorrect AI-generated responses (hallucinations) in a high-stakes assessment
at a UK business school (n=211, Year 2 economics and management students). We
find that only 20% successfully identified the hallucination, with strong
academic performance, interpretive skills thinking, writing proficiency, and AI
scepticism emerging as key predictors. In contrast, rote knowledge application
proved less effective, and gender differences in detection ability were
observed. Beyond identifying predictors of AI hallucination detection, we tie
the theories of epistemic cognition, cognitive bias, and transfer of learning
with new empirical evidence by demonstrating how AI literacy could enhance
long-term analytical performance in high-stakes settings. We advocate for an
innovative and practical framework for AI-integrated assessments, showing that
structured feedback mitigates initial disparities in detection ability. These
findings provide actionable insights for educators designing AI-aware curricula
that foster critical reasoning, epistemic vigilance, and responsible AI
engagement in management education. Our study contributes to the broader
discussion on the evolution of knowledge evaluation in AI-enhanced learning
environments.
Study at a glance
- Question: What influences students' ability to spot incorrect AI-generated information in an assessment?
- Setting and data: A UK business school, 211 Year 2 economics and management students.
- Method: Tests students' ability to identify incorrect AI-generated responses during a high-stakes assessment.
Why it matters
As artificial intelligence becomes integral to society, the ability to critically evaluate AI-generated content is increasingly vital, raising questions about how student traits, academic skills, and AI scepticism influence their ability to detect factually incorrect AI responses.
Key findings
- Among 211 second-year UK business students, only 20% successfully identified factually incorrect AI-generated responses during a high-stakes assessment.
- Successfully detecting AI errors was linked to higher academic performance, interpretive thinking, writing proficiency, and AI skepticism, while rote knowledge proved less effective.
- Structured feedback mitigated initial disparities in students' ability to detect AI errors, though differences were also observed across genders.
Summary drafted with AI from the paper’s abstract and may contain errors. See the full paper for details.
What is the application?
Who is the user?
Who age?
Why use AI?
Study design
