@inbook{65084, author = {{Buhl, Heike M. and Vollmer, Anna-Lisa and Alami, Rachid and Booshehri, Meisam and Främling, Kary}}, booktitle = {{Social explainable AI}}, editor = {{Rohlfing, Katharina J. and Främling, Kary and Lim, Brian and Alpsancar, Suzana and Thommes, Kisten}}, pages = {{269--295}}, publisher = {{Springer}}, title = {{{Models of the situation, the explanandum, and the interaction partner}}}, doi = {{https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-96-5290-7_14}}, year = {{2026}}, } @inbook{65083, author = {{Buhl, Heike M. and Wrede, Britta and Fisher, Josephine Beryl and Matarese, Marco}}, booktitle = {{Social Explainable AI}}, editor = {{Rohlfing, Katharina J. and Främling, Kary and Lim, Brian and Alpsancar, Suzana and Thommes, Kirsten}}, pages = {{247--267}}, publisher = {{Springer}}, title = {{{Adaptation}}}, doi = {{https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-96-5290-7_13}}, year = {{2026}}, } @techreport{65180, author = {{Terfloth, Lutz and Buhl, Heike M. and Lohmer, Vivien and Schaffer, Michael and Kern, Frederike and Schulte, Carsten}}, title = {{{Bridging the Dual Nature: How Integrated Explanations Enhance Understanding of Technical Artifacts}}}, year = {{2026}}, } @article{65265, abstract = {{Abstract Background Research on procrastination mostly focuses on person‐related antecedents and neglects situational and social factors, such as group work. Prior research indicates that conjunctive and additive group work may increase individual effort and performance as compared to individual work. Aims Based on these findings, we investigate whether conjunctive and additive group work may also help reduce procrastination as compared to individual work. Methods In a registered field experiment, N  = 218 students with high levels of trait procrastination worked on an academic task over the course of 10 days in one of three conditions (individual work vs. conjunctive group work vs. additive group work). Dependent variables comprised task procrastination, task performance, and positive and negative task‐related affect. Results Regarding conjunctive group work, results are mixed, with some evidence that conjunctive group work leads to lower procrastination as compared to individual work. Both types of group work resulted in higher negative task‐related affect when assessed prospectively. No other effects were found. Conclusions The findings contribute to the idea that targeted changes in the learning environment, such as the implementation of group work, may help reduce procrastination. }}, author = {{Koppenborg, Markus and Hüffmeier, Joachim and Klingsieck, Katrin B.}}, issn = {{0007-0998}}, journal = {{British Journal of Educational Psychology}}, publisher = {{Wiley}}, title = {{{Is procrastination among students lower in group work? Evidence from a registered field experiment}}}, doi = {{10.1111/bjep.70069}}, year = {{2026}}, } @inbook{44862, author = {{Peckhaus, Volker}}, booktitle = {{New Perspectives on Neo-Kantianism and the Sciences}}, editor = {{Pulte, Helmut and Baedke, Jan and Koenig, Daniel and Nickel, Gregor}}, pages = {{17--37}}, publisher = {{Routledge}}, title = {{{(Neo-)Kantian Foundation of Foundations: The Göttingen Case}}}, year = {{2025}}, } @article{58520, author = {{Haker, Christoph}}, issn = {{0863-4564}}, journal = {{Berliner Debatte Initial}}, number = {{2}}, pages = {{207--223}}, publisher = {{Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft mbH}}, title = {{{Rechtspopulismus und Rechtsextremismus an Hochschulen}}}, doi = {{10.25162/bdi-2024-0015}}, volume = {{35}}, year = {{2025}}, } @article{58521, author = {{Haker, Christoph}}, issn = {{2939-9416}}, journal = {{Kieler sozialwissenschaftliche Revue. Internationales Tönnies-Forum}}, number = {{2-2024}}, pages = {{133--147}}, publisher = {{Verlag Barbara Budrich GmbH}}, title = {{{Normative Grundlagen des pluralistischen Paradigmas}}}, doi = {{10.3224/ksr.v2i2.02}}, volume = {{2}}, year = {{2025}}, } @inbook{59754, author = {{Scharlau, Ingrid and Seifert, Andreas}}, booktitle = {{Psychologiedidaktik an allgemeinbildenden und beruflichen Schulen: Ein Lehrbuch mit Unterrichtsmaterialien}}, editor = {{Scharlau, Ingrid and Bender, Elena and Patrzek, Justine and Schreiber, Christine}}, isbn = {{978-3-662-69480-1}}, pages = {{339--365}}, publisher = {{Springer Nature}}, title = {{{Empirische Methoden der psychologiedidaktischen Forschung}}}, year = {{2025}}, } @inbook{59752, author = {{Scharlau, Ingrid and Patrzek, Justine and Schreiber, Christine}}, booktitle = {{Psychologiedidaktik an allgemeinbildenden und beruflichen Schulen: Ein Lehrbuch mit Unterrichtsmaterialien}}, editor = {{Scharlau, Ingrid and Bender, Elena and Patrzek, Justine and Schreiber, Christine}}, isbn = {{978-3-662-69480-0}}, pages = {{89--118}}, publisher = {{Springer Nature}}, title = {{{Psychologiedidaktik durch Analyse von Kommunikation}}}, year = {{2025}}, } @inbook{59753, author = {{Scharlau, Ingrid and Christine, Schreiber}}, booktitle = {{Psychologiedidaktik an allgemeinbildenden und beruflichen Schulen: Ein Lehrbuch mit Unterrichtsmaterialien}}, editor = {{Scharlau, Ingrid and Bender, Elena and Patrzek, Justine and Schreiber, Christine}}, isbn = {{978-3-662-69480-1}}, pages = {{271--300}}, publisher = {{Springer Nature}}, title = {{{Schreiben im Psychologieunterricht unterstützen}}}, year = {{2025}}, } @unpublished{59839, abstract = {{In many scientific approaches, especially in those that try to foster explainability of Artificial Intelligences, a narrow conception of explaining prevails. This narrow conception implies that explaining is a one-directional action in which knowledge is transferred from the explainer to an addressee. By studying the amount of agency in metaphors for explaining in scientific texts, we want to find out – or at least to contribute a partial answer to the question – why this narrow conception is so dominant. For our analysis, we use a linguistic conception of agency, transitivity. This concept allows to specify the degree of agency or effectiveness of the action in a verbalised event. It is defined by several component parts. We detail and discuss both the parameters of and global transitivity. Overall, transitivity of explaining metaphors has a rather common pattern across metaphors. Agency is not high and reduced in characteristic aspects: The metaphors imply that the object of explaining is static, i.e., is not changed within the explanation, and that explaining is the activity of one person only. This pattern may account for the narrow conception of explaining. It contrasts strongly with current co-constructive or sociotechnical approaches to explainability.}}, author = {{Scharlau, Ingrid and Rohlfing, Katharina J.}}, publisher = {{Center for Open Science}}, title = {{{Agency in metaphors of explaining: An analysis of scientific texts}}}, year = {{2025}}, } @book{59862, editor = {{Kornbach, Alina and Lammer, Christina and Magdeburg, Lena Maria}}, publisher = {{Herder Verlag}}, title = {{{Transdisziplinäre Räume in den Kulturwissenschaften}}}, volume = {{3}}, year = {{2025}}, } @article{59756, abstract = {{A current concern in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is to ensure the trustworthiness of AI systems. The development of explainability methods is one prominent way to address this, which has often resulted in the assumption that the use of explainability will lead to an increase in the trust of users and wider society. However, the dynamics between explainability and trust are not well established and empirical investigations of their relation remain mixed or inconclusive. In this paper we provide a detailed description of the concepts of user trust and distrust in AI and their relation to appropriate reliance. For that we draw from the fields of machine learning, human–computer interaction, and the social sciences. Based on these insights, we have created a focused study of empirical literature of existing empirical studies that investigate the effects of AI systems and XAI methods on user (dis)trust, in order to substantiate our conceptualization of trust, distrust, and reliance. With respect to our conceptual understanding we identify gaps in existing empirical work. With clarifying the concepts and summarizing the empirical studies, we aim to provide researchers, who examine user trust in AI, with an improved starting point for developing user studies to measure and evaluate the user’s attitude towards and reliance on AI systems.}}, author = {{Visser, Roel and Peters, Tobias Martin and Scharlau, Ingrid and Hammer, Barbara}}, issn = {{1389-0417}}, journal = {{Cognitive Systems Research}}, keywords = {{XAI, Appropriate trust, Distrust, Reliance, Human-centric evaluation, Trustworthy AI}}, publisher = {{Elsevier BV}}, title = {{{Trust, distrust, and appropriate reliance in (X)AI: A conceptual clarification of user trust and survey of its empirical evaluation}}}, doi = {{10.1016/j.cogsys.2025.101357}}, year = {{2025}}, } @inbook{59864, author = {{Kornbach, Alina and Lammer, Christina and Magdeburg, Lena Maria}}, booktitle = {{Transdisziplinäre Räume in den Kulturwissenschaften}}, editor = {{Kornbach, Alina and Lammer, Christina and Magdeburg, Lena}}, pages = {{7--31}}, publisher = {{Herder Verlag}}, title = {{{Transdisziplinäre Räume in den Kulturwissenschaften}}}, volume = {{3}}, year = {{2025}}, } @misc{59922, author = {{Porwol, Philip and Scharlau, Ingrid}}, publisher = {{OSF}}, title = {{{An annotated corpus of elicited metaphors of explaining and understanding using MIPVU}}}, doi = {{10.17605/OSF.IO/Y6SMX}}, year = {{2025}}, } @article{59755, abstract = {{Due to the application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in high-risk domains like law or medicine, trustworthy AI and trust in AI are of increasing scientific and public relevance. A typical conception, for example in the context of medical diagnosis, is that a knowledgeable user receives AIgenerated classification as advice. Research to improve such interactions often aims to foster the user’s trust, which in turn should improve the combined human-AI performance. Given that AI models can err, we argue that the possibility to critically review, thus to distrust, an AI decision is an equally interesting target of research. We created two image classification scenarios in which the participants received mock-up AI advice. The quality of the advice decreases for a phase of the experiment. We studied the task performance, trust and distrust of the participants, and tested whether an instruction to remain skeptical and review each piece of advice led to a better performance compared to a neutral condition. Our results indicate that this instruction does not improve but rather worsens the participants’ performance. Repeated single-item self-report of trust and distrust shows an increase in trust and a decrease in distrust after the drop in the AI’s classification quality, with no difference between the two instructions. Furthermore, via a Bayesian Signal Detection Theory analysis, we provide a procedure to assess appropriate reliance in detail, by quantifying whether the problems of under- and over-reliance have been mitigated. We discuss implications of our results for the usage of disclaimers before interacting with AI, as prominently used in current LLM-based chatbots, and for trust and distrust research.}}, author = {{Peters, Tobias Martin and Scharlau, Ingrid}}, journal = {{Frontiers in Psychology}}, keywords = {{trust in AI, trust, distrust, human-AI interaction, Signal Detection Theory, Bayesian parameter estimation, image classification}}, title = {{{Interacting with fallible AI: Is distrust helpful when receiving AI misclassifications?}}}, doi = {{10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1574809}}, volume = {{16}}, year = {{2025}}, } @article{60144, author = {{Depenbusch, Sarah}}, journal = {{Frontiers in Computer Science}}, number = {{1553441}}, title = {{{VR-based avatar videos as an effective tool for process training in the context of digitalization?}}}, doi = {{10.3389/fcomp.2025.1553441}}, volume = {{7}}, year = {{2025}}, } @article{59167, author = {{Thomas, Sven}}, journal = {{HannahArendt.Net}}, number = {{1}}, pages = {{240–242}}, title = {{{Rezension: Thomas Meyers neue Arendt Biographie. Sinnbild der Verstrickung von Theorie und Praxis}}}, doi = {{10.57773/HANET.V14I1.607}}, volume = {{14}}, year = {{2025}}, } @book{61364, abstract = {{Women’s rights over their own bodies is one of the most pressing issues, esp. as women still seem to have fewer rights over their bodies than men. International authors from philosophy, literature, art, architecture, and gender studies address the topic from a variety of perspectives, reaching beyond classical feminism, and beyond the labels of "motherhood" and "sex." The contributions are grouped into five sections – Body Experiences, History, Technology and Arts, Feminism and Phenomenology, and Beauty. Papers address a multitude of areas, ranging from beauty practices and Ukrainian women refugees in the context of the Russia-Ukraine war, feminist phenomenology and socio-structural critique, female specific neuropathology, the discourse of the Victorian women’s menstruation to "motherhood" in gender studies and feminist new materialisms. The book provides not only a comprehensive overview over the current state of research, but will also inspire further discussions. A separate bibliography listing relevant titles for readers new to the topics and for advanced researchers rounds out the volume.}}, editor = {{Muller, Jil}}, isbn = {{9783111396125}}, pages = {{360}}, publisher = {{De Gruyter Brill}}, title = {{{Women and their Body}}}, doi = {{10.1515/9783111396934}}, year = {{2025}}, } @inbook{63711, author = {{Muller, Jil}}, booktitle = {{Women and Their Body}}, isbn = {{9783111396125}}, publisher = {{De Gruyter}}, title = {{{1 1Introduction Women and Their Body: Breaking the Silence}}}, doi = {{10.1515/9783111396934-002}}, year = {{2025}}, }