# Acceptance of Medical Treatment Regimens Provided by AI vs. Human
## 6 Experiment 3
### Results  
First, an ANOVA was conducted with treatment subject and regimen content as independent variables and acceptance as dependent variables. The results showed significant main effects for the treatment subject group and higher acceptance in the human physicians group than in the AI group (\(M_{\text{human physicians}}=4.14\), \(SD_{\text{human physicians}}=1.14\); \(M_{\text{AI}}=3.77\), \(SD_{\text{AI}}=1.32\), \(F(1,\,227)=4.524\), \(p=0.035\), \(d=0.30\)), while the main effect of regimen content was not significant \(F(1,\,227)=1.423\), \(p=0.234\)). In addition, the interaction between the treatment subject and the regimen content on acceptance was significant (\(F(1,\,227)=13.864\), \(p<0.001\), \(d=0.059\)). Specifically, the patient acceptance of AI was lower for human regimens (\(M_{\text{human physicians}}=4.51\), \(SD_{\text{human physicians}}=0.95\); \(M_{\text{AI}}=3.58\), \(SD_{\text{AI}}=1.21\); \(t(120)=4.23\), \(p<0.001\); \(d=0.85\)), whereas for utilitarian regimens there was no significant difference between regimen developers (\(M_{\text{human physicians}}=3.73\), \(SD_{\text{human physicians}}=1.21\); \(M_{\text{AI}}=3.98\), \(SD_{\text{AI}}=1.16\); \(t(107)=-1.10\), \(p=0.272\)); furthermore, within the human physician group, the patients were less receptive to utilitarian regimens (\(M_{\text{utilitarian}}=3.73\), \(SD_{\text{utilitarian}}=1.21\); \(M_{\text{humane}}=4.51\), \(SD_{\text{humane}}=0.95\); \(t(118)=-3.93\), \(p<0.001\), \(d=0.77\)), while there was no significant difference in the AI group (\(M_{\text{utilitarian}}=3.98\), \(SD_{\text{utilitarian}}=1.16\); \(M_{\text{humane}}=3.58\), \(SD_{\text{humane}}=1.21\); \(t(109)=1.60\), \(p=0.112\); Figure 2). Next, we calculated the mean of the abilities corresponding to each of the two dimensions of mental ability to obtain the experience and agency scores and then we began to examine the mediating effects of each of experience and agency. The mediating effect of mind perception in the relationship between treatment subject and acceptance was tested using Model4 in the SPSS macro that was developed by [PERSON] (2012). The results (see Tables 1 and 2) showed that the difference in acceptance between treatments was significant (\(\beta=0.373\), \(t=2.287\), \(p=0.023\)), and the difference in acceptance between treatment subjects was no longer significant when the relationship was mediated by experience (\(\beta=-0.034\), \(t=-0.176\), \(p=0.861\)), indicating that experience had a fully mediated effect on the relationship between the treatment subject and acceptance relationship. In addition, the effect of the treatment subject on perception was significant (\(\beta=1.337\), \(t=10.683\), \(p<0.001\)). Specifically, the participants rated experience higher for human physicians, and experience was a significant positive predictor of regimen acceptance (\(\beta=0.305\), \(t=3.599\), \(p=0.004\)). Similarly, we proceeded to test whether another dimension of mental capacity, agency, also had an effect on medical AI aversion. Model 4 of the SPSS macro, that was developed by [PERSON] (2012), was used to test the mediating effect of agency in the relationship between the treatment subjects and acceptance. The results (see Tables 3 and 4) showed that the difference in acceptance between the participants facing different treatments was \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Acceptance**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Acceptance**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Experience**} \\ \cline{2-6}  & \(B\) & \(t\) & \(B\) & \(t\) & \(B\) & \(t\) \\ \hline treatment & \(-0.034\) & \(-0.176\) & \(0.373\) & \(2.287\) * & \(1.337\) & \(10.683\)** \\ experience & \(0.305\) & \(3.599\)** & & & \\ \(R^{2}\) & \(0.071\) & & \(0.023\) & & \(0.337\) \\ \(F\) & \(9.229\) & & \(5.232\) & & \(14.164\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note.* \(p<0.05\); ** \(p<0.001\).  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Mediated model test of experience.