Trusting under risk – comparing human to AI decision support agents

IF 11.3 1区化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL

ACS Catalysis Pub Date : 2023-12-24 DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2023.108107

Hannah Fahnenstich , Tobias Rieger , Eileen Roesler

{"title":"Trusting under risk – comparing human to AI decision support agents","authors":"Hannah Fahnenstich , Tobias Rieger , Eileen Roesler","doi":"10.1016/j.chb.2023.108107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The growing number of safety-critical technologized workplaces leads to enhanced support of complex human decision-making by artificial intelligence (AI), increasing the relevance of risk in the joint decision process. This online study examined participants' trust, attitude and behavior during a visual estimation task supported by either a human or an AI decision support agent. Throughout the online studyrisk levels were manipulated through different scenarios. Contrary to recent literature, no main effects were found in participants' trust attitude or trust behavior between support agent conditions or risk levels. However, participants using AI support exhibited increased trust behavior under higher risk, while participants with human support agents did not display behavioral differences. Self-confidence vs. trust and an increased feeling of responsibility may be possible reasons. Furthermore, participants reported the human support agent to be more responsible for possible negative outcomes of the joint task than the AI support agent. Hereby, risk did not influence perceived responsibility. However, the study's findings concerning trust behavior underscore the crucial importance of investigating the impact of risk in workplaces, shedding light on the under-researched effect of risk on trust attitude and behavior in AI-supported human decision-making.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":9,"journal":{"name":"ACS Catalysis ","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":11.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Catalysis ","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563223004582","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

The growing number of safety-critical technologized workplaces leads to enhanced support of complex human decision-making by artificial intelligence (AI), increasing the relevance of risk in the joint decision process. This online study examined participants' trust, attitude and behavior during a visual estimation task supported by either a human or an AI decision support agent. Throughout the online studyrisk levels were manipulated through different scenarios. Contrary to recent literature, no main effects were found in participants' trust attitude or trust behavior between support agent conditions or risk levels. However, participants using AI support exhibited increased trust behavior under higher risk, while participants with human support agents did not display behavioral differences. Self-confidence vs. trust and an increased feeling of responsibility may be possible reasons. Furthermore, participants reported the human support agent to be more responsible for possible negative outcomes of the joint task than the AI support agent. Hereby, risk did not influence perceived responsibility. However, the study's findings concerning trust behavior underscore the crucial importance of investigating the impact of risk in workplaces, shedding light on the under-researched effect of risk on trust attitude and behavior in AI-supported human decision-making.

查看原文本刊更多论文

风险下的信任--人类与人工智能决策支持代理的比较

对安全至关重要的技术化工作场所越来越多，导致人工智能（AI）对人类复杂决策的支持增强，从而提高了风险在联合决策过程中的相关性。这项在线研究考察了在人类或人工智能决策支持代理的支持下，参与者在视觉估算任务中的信任态度和行为。与最近的文献相反，在支持代理条件或风险水平之间，参与者的信任态度或信任行为没有发现主效应。然而，使用人工智能支持的参与者在较高风险下表现出更高的信任行为，而使用人类支持代理的参与者则没有表现出行为差异。自信与信任以及责任感的增强可能是其中的原因。此外，与人工智能支持代理相比，参与者认为人类支持代理对联合任务中可能出现的负面结果负有更大责任。风险并不影响责任感。然而，本研究关于信任行为的发现强调了调查工作场所风险影响的重要性，揭示了在人工智能支持的人类决策中，风险对信任态度和行为的影响研究不足。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

ACS Catalysis CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL-

CiteScore

20.80

自引率

6.20%

发文量

1253

审稿时长

1.5 months

期刊介绍： ACS Catalysis is an esteemed journal that publishes original research in the fields of heterogeneous catalysis, molecular catalysis, and biocatalysis. It offers broad coverage across diverse areas such as life sciences, organometallics and synthesis, photochemistry and electrochemistry, drug discovery and synthesis, materials science, environmental protection, polymer discovery and synthesis, and energy and fuels. The scope of the journal is to showcase innovative work in various aspects of catalysis. This includes new reactions and novel synthetic approaches utilizing known catalysts, the discovery or modification of new catalysts, elucidation of catalytic mechanisms through cutting-edge investigations, practical enhancements of existing processes, as well as conceptual advances in the field. Contributions to ACS Catalysis can encompass both experimental and theoretical research focused on catalytic molecules, macromolecules, and materials that exhibit catalytic turnover.