Psychological Competence as a Missing Dimension in AI Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.08285v1
• Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2026 09:29:01 GMT
• Title: Psychological Competence as a Missing Dimension in AI Evaluation
• Abstract summary: This paper introduces psychological competence as a missing dimension in AI evaluation.<n>We outline a conceptual framework for psychological competence and its core domains.<n>We argue that psychological competence should become a core consideration for model providers, deploying organizations, researchers, and regulators.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Current AI evaluation frameworks focus primarily on technical performance, including accuracy, robustness, reasoning ability, and policy compliance. These measures remain essential, but they are not sufficient for systems that interact directly with users through natural language. Human-facing AI systems are increasingly used as advisors, coaches, tutors, and companions. In these roles, their responses can shape how users reason, interpret emotions, form beliefs, calibrate trust, and make decisions. The relevant unit of evaluation is therefore not only the model, but the human-AI interaction. This paper introduces psychological competence as a missing dimension in AI evaluation. We define psychological competence as the capacity of a human-facing AI system to support user cognition, emotional interpretation, and behavioral decision-making in ways that are appropriate to the user, context, and purpose of the interaction. This includes interaction properties such as framing, tone, perceived authority, responsiveness, uncertainty handling, and conversational guidance. Existing evaluation approaches capture parts of this problem but rarely assess these psychological effects directly. Drawing on behavioral science and human-AI interaction research, we outline a conceptual framework for psychological competence and its core domains. Rather than proposing a specific benchmark, we define the construct, clarify its boundaries, and describe how it may be assessed through scenario-based probes, structured human evaluation, and model-assisted evaluation methods. We argue that psychological competence should become a core consideration for model providers, deploying organizations, researchers, and regulators concerned with the real-world effects of human-facing AI systems.

Related papers

• AI Should Not Only Be Helpful. It Should Be Contingent. Artificial Intimacy, Sycophancy, and the Future of Social Learning [0.3906427348768226]
  We argue that AI systems should be evaluated not only by user satisfaction, but by their impact on human social learning.<n>We outline a framework for contingent AI, including trajectory-based evaluation and models of social consequence prediction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-31T18:23:14Z)
• Measuring What AI Systems Might Do: Towards A Measurement Science in AI [19.687397197326817]
  capabilities, propensities, skills, values, and abilities are routinely used interchangeably and conflated with observable performance.<n>We argue that capabilities and propensities are dispositional properties - stable features of systems characterised by counterfactual relationships.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-10T12:59:41Z)
• Responsible Evaluation of AI for Mental Health [72.85175110624736]
  Current approaches to evaluating AI tools in mental health care are fragmented and poorly aligned with clinical practice, social context, and first-hand user experience.<n>This paper argues for a rethinking of responsible evaluation by introducing an interdisciplinary framework that integrates clinical soundness, social context, and equity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-20T12:55:10Z)
• Human-centred test and evaluation of military AI [0.0]
  The REAIM 2024 Blueprint for Action states that AI applications in the military domain should be ethical and human-centric.<n>TEVV in the development and deployment of AI systems needs to involve human users throughout the lifecycle.<n>Traditional human-centred test and evaluation methods from human factors need to be adapted for deployed AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T21:14:55Z)
• Aligning Generalisation Between Humans and Machines [74.120848518198]
  AI technology can support humans in scientific discovery and forming decisions, but may also disrupt democracies and target individuals.<n>The responsible use of AI and its participation in human-AI teams increasingly shows the need for AI alignment.<n>A crucial yet often overlooked aspect of these interactions is the different ways in which humans and machines generalise.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-23T18:36:07Z)
• How Performance Pressure Influences AI-Assisted Decision Making [52.997197698288936]
  We show how pressure and explainable AI (XAI) techniques interact with AI advice-taking behavior.<n>Our results show complex interaction effects, with different combinations of pressure and XAI techniques either improving or worsening AI advice taking behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T22:39:52Z)
• Combining AI Control Systems and Human Decision Support via Robustness and Criticality [53.10194953873209]
  We extend a methodology for adversarial explanations (AE) to state-of-the-art reinforcement learning frameworks. We show that the learned AI control system demonstrates robustness against adversarial tampering. In a training / learning framework, this technology can improve both the AI's decisions and explanations through human interaction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T15:38:57Z)
• ConSiDERS-The-Human Evaluation Framework: Rethinking Human Evaluation for Generative Large Language Models [53.00812898384698]
  We argue that human evaluation of generative large language models (LLMs) should be a multidisciplinary undertaking. We highlight how cognitive biases can conflate fluent information and truthfulness, and how cognitive uncertainty affects the reliability of rating scores such as Likert. We propose the ConSiDERS-The-Human evaluation framework consisting of 6 pillars -- Consistency, Scoring Criteria, Differentiating, User Experience, Responsible, and Scalability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-28T22:45:28Z)
• Towards interactive evaluations for interaction harms in human-AI systems [8.989911701384788]
  We propose a shift towards evaluation based on textitinteractional ethics, which focuses on textitinteraction harms<n>First, we discuss the limitations of current evaluation methods, which (1) are static, (2) assume a universal user experience, and (3) have limited construct validity.<n>We present practical principles for designing interactive evaluations. These include ecologically valid interaction scenarios, human impact metrics, and diverse human participation approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-17T08:49:34Z)
• AGENT: A Benchmark for Core Psychological Reasoning [60.35621718321559]
  Intuitive psychology is the ability to reason about hidden mental variables that drive observable actions. Despite recent interest in machine agents that reason about other agents, it is not clear if such agents learn or hold the core psychology principles that drive human reasoning. We present a benchmark consisting of procedurally generated 3D animations, AGENT, structured around four scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-24T14:58:23Z)
• How to Answer Why -- Evaluating the Explanations of AI Through Mental Model Analysis [0.0]
  Key question for human-centered AI research is how to validly survey users' mental models. We evaluate whether mental models are suitable as an empirical research method. We propose an exemplary method to evaluate explainable AI approaches in a human-centered way.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-11T17:15:58Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.