@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}},
}
@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}},
}
@article{60204,
author = {{Hagengruber, Ruth and Muller, Jil and Grewe, Felix}},
issn = {{1868-7245}},
journal = {{GENDER – Zeitschrift für Geschlecht Kultur und Gesellschaft}},
number = {{2-2025}},
publisher = {{Verlag Barbara Budrich GmbH}},
title = {{{Vorwort: Brisante Wahrheiten – Philosophinnen und Denkerinnen und die andere Geschichte der Philosophie und Wissenschaften}}},
doi = {{10.3224/gender.v17i2.01}},
volume = {{17}},
year = {{2025}},
}
@misc{55091,
booktitle = {{GENDER: Zeitschrift, Geschlecht, Kultur und Gesellschaft - Frauen in der Geschichte der Philosophie}},
editor = {{Hagengruber, Ruth Edith and Muller, Jil and Grewe, Felix}},
number = {{2}},
pages = {{160}},
publisher = {{Barbara Budrich Verlag}},
title = {{{Brisante Wahrheiten – eine andere Geschichte der Philosophie }}},
volume = {{25}},
year = {{2025}},
}
@misc{61121,
author = {{Peckhaus, Volker}},
booktitle = {{zbMATH Open, Zbl. 08058231}},
title = {{{Franke-Reddig, Julia, „Bernard Bolzano im Kontext der Logikgeschichtsschreibung von Heinrich Scholz“, SieB. Siegener Beiträge zur Geschichte und Philosophie der Mathematik 18 (2024), 155–175}}},
year = {{2025}},
}
@article{63181,
abstract = {{
Purpose
This study aims to explore the current state of generative artificial intelligence (genAI) in the workplace and discuss a potential digital divide in relation to genAI.
Design/methodology/approach
Using a quantitative approach, we study career-relevant predictors – family socio-economic status, education and work characteristics – and their relationship with different indicators of digital divide – access, genAI use, attitude toward AI and perceived AI literacy. To test our hypothesis, we used logistic and linear regression analyses. Additionally, latent profile analysis was conducted to identify patterns regarding work characteristics within the sample.
Findings
Among the 1,341 participants, 326 individuals were genAI users. Our results show that higher family socio-economic status, education and enriched and demanding work can be linked to a more positive attitude toward AI and higher perceived AI literacy. In the case of access and frequency of use, the results were mixed.
Originality/value
Our findings offer a novel contribution by examining a potentially upcoming digital divide in the case of genAI. We focus on how the career adaptation of the workforce might develop in the age of genAI. Importantly, we highlight that not all individuals may have an equal opportunity to adapt to genAI, which could hinder their future career development and reinforce patterns of inequality. Future research should address how to promote inclusivity and consider individual differences in adapting to genAI.
}},
author = {{Neufeld, Katharina and Ohly, Sandra and Sedefoglu-Ulucak, Didem and Steinhardt, Isabel and Mauermeister, Sylvi}},
issn = {{1362-0436}},
journal = {{Career Development International}},
pages = {{1--19}},
publisher = {{Emerald}},
title = {{{Analyzing the role of family socio-economic status, education and work characteristics in times of generative artificial intelligence and digital divide}}},
doi = {{10.1108/cdi-10-2024-0442}},
year = {{2025}},
}
@techreport{64781,
author = {{Rossmann, Felix and Greitens, Jan and Knoll, Lisa}},
title = {{{SMEs within a Data-Driven Sustainable Finance Framework: A European Survey}}},
doi = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5677922}},
year = {{2025}},
}
@inbook{61275,
author = {{Hagengruber, Ruth Edith}},
booktitle = {{The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Time}},
editor = {{Emery, Nina}},
isbn = {{9781003495611}},
publisher = {{Routledge}},
title = {{{Émilie Du Châtelet on Time}}},
doi = {{10.4324/9781003495611-9}},
year = {{2025}},
}
@misc{59921,
author = {{Scharlau, Ingrid and Miriam, Körber}},
publisher = {{OSF}},
title = {{{Metaphors in 24 WIRED Level 5 Videos (Data corpus)}}},
doi = {{10.17605/OSF.IO/94A2J}},
year = {{2025}},
}
@techreport{61332,
author = {{Buhl, Heike M. and Fisher, Josephine Beryl and Rohlfing, Katharina J.}},
publisher = {{OSF}},
title = {{{Role Perception Questionnaire: Co-construction. Scales manual}}},
year = {{2025}},
}
@techreport{61433,
author = {{Buhl, Heike M. and Herrmann, Paula and Bolinger, Dean X.}},
publisher = {{OSF}},
title = {{{TRR 318, Project A01, WP 2.1. Scales manual}}},
year = {{2025}},
}
@techreport{61434,
author = {{Buhl, Heike M. and Herrmann, Paula and Bolinger, Dean X.}},
publisher = {{OSF}},
title = {{{TRR 318, Project A01, WP 2.2. Scales manual}}},
year = {{2025}},
}
@inbook{44861,
author = {{Peckhaus, Volker}},
booktitle = {{: „… eine so innige Verwebung sowohl sachlicher wie auch persönlicher Art.“ Zu den Tagungen am Mathematischen Forschungsinstitut Oberwolfach, 1945–1960}},
editor = {{Remenyi, Maria and Remmert, Volker}},
pages = {{281--299}},
publisher = {{Mathematisches Forschungsinstitut Oberwolfach}},
title = {{{Tagungen zur Logik}}},
year = {{2025}},
}
@article{61768,
author = {{Knoll, Lisa and Klüh, Ulrich and Naji, Ilias and Rossmann, Felix}},
issn = {{2833-115X}},
journal = {{Finance and Space}},
number = {{1}},
pages = {{338--354}},
publisher = {{Informa UK Limited}},
title = {{{Sustainable finance down-to-earth? Insights from the German regional economy}}},
doi = {{10.1080/2833115x.2025.2539712}},
volume = {{2}},
year = {{2025}},
}
@inbook{60460,
author = {{Knoll, Lisa}},
booktitle = {{Sustainable Finance. Die Zukunft nachhaltigen Investierens – ein interdisziplinärer Ausblick}},
editor = {{e.V., cric}},
publisher = {{oekom}},
title = {{{Sustainable Finance und Soziologie}}},
doi = {{https://doi.org/10.14512/9783987264160}},
year = {{2025}},
}
@article{61244,
abstract = {{Explanations play a crucial role in knowledge transfer and meaning-making and are often described as a co-constructive process in which multiple agents collaboratively shape understanding. However, the metaphors used to conceptualize explaining may influence how this process is framed. This study investigates the extent to which the co-constructive nature of explaining is represented in explaining metaphors. Using a systematic analysis of agency, we examined how these metaphors depict the explanation process and the roles of the agents involved. We found that explaining metaphors lack collaboration between explainer and addressee, constructiveness of the process, as well as bidirectionality and iterativeness. In light of current research on metaphorical framing, the study thus highlights the risk that such explaining metaphors may reinforce a non-co-constructive perspective on explaining and a top-down approach in the development of AI systems as well as other areas.}},
author = {{Porwol, Philip Fabian and Scharlau, Ingrid}},
journal = {{Frontiers in Psychology}},
title = {{{Is explaining more like showing or more like building? Agency in metaphors of explaining}}},
doi = {{https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1628706}},
year = {{2025}},
}
@inproceedings{62060,
author = {{Bobe, Julia and Decker, Claudia and Klingsieck, Katrin B.}},
location = {{Lübeck}},
title = {{{Gestärkt durchs Studium - Universitäre Unterstützungsangebote zum Stress- und Selbstmanagement}}},
year = {{2025}},
}
@inproceedings{62058,
author = {{Bobe, Julia and Klingsieck, Katrin B.}},
location = {{Utrecht}},
title = {{{The Role of Subjective Discomfort in Procrastination - Feeling bad about unnecessary delaying and therefore, preventing it?}}},
year = {{2025}},
}