Skip to main content
airs-appropriate-reliance Domain knowledge for AI adoption measurement, psychometric instrument development, and appropriate reliance research
Jump to install Skills Marketplace Discover and explore AI skills built by the community.
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
Show prompt details A direct command skips the review prompt. Inspect the source before running it.
npx skills add https://github.com/fabioc-aloha/Alex_Plug_In --skill airs-appropriate-relianceThe command stays on one line. Scroll horizontally to inspect it before copying.
Prefer a local copy? Download the files currently available to SkillsMP.
Download Zip Downloading... More from this repository Related occupations SOC
Based on SOC occupation classification
name airs-appropriate-reliance description Domain knowledge for AI adoption measurement, psychometric instrument development, and appropriate reliance research tier extended applyTo **/*airs*,**/*reliance*,**/*adoption*,**/*utaut*,**/*psychometric*,**/*instrument*,**/*survey*,**/*scale* inheritance master-only
AIRS & Appropriate Reliance Research
Domain knowledge for AI adoption measurement, psychometric instrument development, and appropriate reliance research
This skill contains knowledge about the AIRS-16 validated instrument, the proposed AIRS-18 extension with Appropriate Reliance (AR), and research methodologies for studying AI adoption and human-AI collaboration.
When to Use
Discussing AIRS-16 or AIRS-18 instruments
Developing or extending psychometric scales
Analyzing AI adoption patterns
Researching appropriate reliance / trust calibration
Preparing academic papers or research briefs
Meeting preparation with researchers
AIRS-16: AI Readiness Scale
Source : Correa, F. (2025). Doctoral dissertation, Touro University Worldwide.
Production :
Time
Built by
Validation : N=523, CFI=.975, TLI=.960, RMSEA=.053, R²=.852
Quick Links
User Roles Role Access 👤 Participant Take assessments, view personal results, download PDF reports ✨ Founder Organization creator, can be promoted to Admin 🛡️ Admin Dashboard analytics, member management, invitations 👑 Super Admin Platform-wide access, all orgs, AI prompts configuration
8 Constructs (2 items each) Construct Code Description Performance Expectancy PE Belief that AI will help achieve job performance gains Effort Expectancy EE Perceived ease of use of AI systems Social Influence SI Degree to which colleagues/leadership encourage adoption Facilitating Conditions FC Availability of organizational resources and training Hedonic Motivation HM Enjoyment and curiosity when exploring AI capabilities Price Value PV Perceived benefit relative to effort invested (β=.505 — strongest predictor) Habit HB Extent to which AI use has become automatic and routine Trust in AI TR Confidence in AI reliability, accuracy, and data handling
Key Finding: What Actually Predicts AI Adoption Predictor β p Status Price Value (PV) .505 <.001 ✅ STRONGEST Hedonic Motivation (HM) .217 .014 ✅ Significant Social Influence (SI) .136 .024 ✅ Significant Trust in AI (TR) .106 .064 ⚠️ Marginal Performance Expectancy (PE) -.028 .791 ❌ Not significant Effort Expectancy (EE) -.008 .875 ❌ Not significant Facilitating Conditions (FC) .059 .338 ❌ Not significant Habit (HB) .023 .631 ❌ Not significant
Insight : Traditional UTAUT2 predictors (PE, EE, FC, HB) do NOT predict AI adoption. Value perception, enjoyment, and social influence matter.
Scoring & Typology
AIRS = PE + EE + SI + FC + HM + PV + HB + TR
if AIRS <= 20 : "AI Skeptic"
elif AIRS <= 30 : "Moderate User"
else : "AI Enthusiast"
Appropriate Reliance (AR): Proposed AIRS-18 Extension
The Research Question
Is it not how much you trust AI that predicts adoption, but how well your trust is calibrated to actual AI capability?
Why AR ≠ Trust (TR) Dimension Trust (TR) Appropriate Reliance (AR) Measures Trust level Trust calibration accuracy Type Attitude (affective state) Metacognitive skill Failure mode Low trust → under-use Low AR → over-reliance OR under-reliance Item example "I trust AI tools..." "I can tell when AI is reliable..."
Key distinction : TR asks "Do you trust AI?" — AR asks "Can you discern when trust is warranted?"
The 2×2 Independence Matrix Low AR (Miscalibrated) High AR (Calibrated) High TR ⚠️ Over-reliance → bad outcomes → abandonment ✅ Optimal adoption Low TR ❌ Under-reliance → missed value → rejection ✅ Calibrated skeptic → gradual adoption
Proposed AR Items Item Text Component AR1 I can tell when AI-generated information is reliable and when it needs verification. CAIR AR2 I know when to trust AI tools and when to rely on my own judgment instead. CSR
CAIR/CSR Framework (Schemmer et al., 2023) User Accepts User Rejects AI Correct CAIR ✅ (Correct AI-Reliance) Under-reliance AI Incorrect Over-reliance CSR ✅ (Correct Self-Reliance)
Metric : Appropriateness of Reliance (AoR) = 1 indicates optimal calibration.
Psychological Autonomy (PA): Proposed AIRS-20 Extension
Why PA Extends Beyond AR The AIRS-18 Appropriate Reliance (AR) construct measures cognitive calibration -- whether users trust AI proportional to demonstrated accuracy. PA addresses a different dimension: whether users maintain emotional and psychological independence from the AI relationship itself.
Dimension AR (Cognitive) PA (Psychological) Measures Trust calibration accuracy Emotional independence Risk when low Blind trust in incorrect output Emotional dependency on AI relationship Intervention Verification skill-building Autonomy reinforcement
PA Construct Items (5-point Likert: 1=Strongly Disagree, 5=Strongly Agree) Item Text Subscale PA1 "I maintain my own judgment about work quality even when AI provides positive feedback about my approach." Emotional independence PA2 "I can recognize when AI responses are designed to make me feel good rather than to help me improve." Manipulation awareness PA3 "I would feel comfortable switching to a different AI assistant if a better option became available." Attachment flexibility PA4 "When an AI assistant agrees with me, I consider whether it might be agreeing to avoid conflict rather than because I'm correct." Sycophancy detection
Scoring PA = mean(PA1, PA2, PA3, PA4)
Score Level Interpretation < 3.0 Low Psychological over-reliance risk -- user may not recognize manipulation patterns 3.0-4.0 Moderate Some awareness but room for calibration improvement > 4.0 High Healthy emotional boundaries with AI systems
Research Hypotheses for AIRS-20 Validation # Hypothesis H7 PA demonstrates acceptable reliability (α >= .70, CR >= .70, AVE >= .50) H8 PA shows discriminant validity from both TR and AR (HTMT < .85) H9 PA moderates the relationship between session length and reliance drift H10 Low PA predicts higher susceptibility to sycophantic AI output
Research Hypotheses for AIRS-18 Validation # Hypothesis H1 AR demonstrates acceptable reliability (α ≥ .70, CR ≥ .70, AVE ≥ .50) H2 AR shows discriminant validity from TR (HTMT < .85) H3 AR positively predicts BI (β > 0, p < .05) H4 AR provides incremental validity beyond AIRS-16 (ΔR² > .02) H5 AR moderates TR→BI (high AR strengthens the relationship) H6 AR mediates Experience→BI (experience → better calibration → adoption)
Psychometric Standards
Reliability Thresholds Metric Minimum Good Excellent Cronbach's α .70 .80 .90 Composite Reliability (CR) .70 .80 .90 Average Variance Extracted (AVE) .50 .60 .70
Model Fit Indices Index Acceptable Good CFI ≥ .90 ≥ .95 TLI ≥ .90 ≥ .95 RMSEA ≤ .08 ≤ .06 SRMR ≤ .08 ≤ .05
Discriminant Validity Method Criterion HTMT < .85 (conservative: < .90) Fornell-Larcker √AVE > inter-construct correlations
Intervention Strategies by Typology Typology AIRS-16 Focus + AR-Informed Focus AI Skeptics (≤20)Trust-building, low-effort demos Calibration training: "Here's when AI excels vs. struggles" Moderate Users (21-30)Clear use cases, ROI evidence Verification skill-building: "How to spot AI errors" AI Enthusiasts (>30)Advanced features, leadership Reliance audits: "Are you over-relying in high-stakes areas?"
Key References Reference Contribution Correa (2025) AIRS-16 validation, UTAUT2 extension Passi, Dhanorkar, & Vorvoreanu (2024) AETHER synthesis on appropriate reliance Schemmer et al. (2023) CAIR/CSR framework Venkatesh et al. (2012) UTAUT2 original model Lee & See (2004) Trust calibration in human-automation interaction Lin et al. (2022) LLMs can verbalize calibrated uncertainty
Troubleshooting
"Is AR just measuring AI experience?" Problem : Concern that AR conflates with general AI familiarity.
Include experience as covariate
Test discriminant validity (HTMT < .85)
AR should predict beyond experience level
"Can self-reported calibration be valid?" Problem : People may not accurately assess their own calibration ability.
Self-report measures perceived calibration
Future research: correlate with behavioral CAIR/CSR in task studies
Perceived calibration may still predict adoption intentions
"Why was Trust marginal in AIRS-16?"
Trust level alone is insufficient — calibration matters more
Trust may be necessary but not sufficient
TR × AR interaction: trust only helps when calibrated
Sample characteristics (tech-savvy population)
Practical Application Modules
Project AI Readiness Assessment Evaluate a project for AI integration readiness using AIRS-weighted dimensions:
Project_Readiness = (PV_score × 2.0) + (EE_score × 1.5) + (PE_score × 1.2) + (HM_score × 0.8) + (SI_score × 0.5)
Max = 30 points
Score Level Recommendation 24-30 High Proceed with AI integration 18-23 Moderate Address gaps before proceeding 12-17 Low Significant preparation needed <12 Not Ready Pause and reassess
Session Reliance Calibration Over-reliance signals : Accepting all suggestions without edits, not verifying AI code, "just do it" on critical tasks.
Under-reliance signals : Ignoring suggestions, manually typing generated code, rejecting help before evaluating.
Calibration interventions :
Over-reliance: "I notice you're trusting my outputs quickly. For this critical task, would you like to review together?"
Under-reliance: "I see you're preferring manual work. I could help with [specific subtask] — want a hybrid approach?"
Enterprise Deployment Readiness Business Case Technical Ready Change Ready Recommendation ✅ ✅ ✅ Full deployment ✅ ✅ ❌ Pilot with champions ✅ ❌ ✅ Technical sprint first ❌ Any Any STOP — build business case
Self-Monitoring Metrics Metric Target Concern Acceptance Rate 60-80% >90% = over-reliance Modification Rate 20-40% Healthy verification Rejection Rate 10-30% >50% = under-reliance
Activation Patterns Trigger Response "AI readiness", "should we add AI" Project Assessment "calibrate", "am I over-relying" Session Calibration "enterprise AI", "org deployment" Enterprise Assessment High acceptance rate detected Self-monitoring intervention
