Explanation seeking and anomalous recommendation adherence in human-to-human versus human-to-artificial intelligence interactions

IF 2.8 4区 管理学 Q2 MANAGEMENT
Tracy Jenkin, Stephanie Kelley, Anton Ovchinnikov, Cecilia Ying
{"title":"Explanation seeking and anomalous recommendation adherence in human-to-human versus human-to-artificial intelligence interactions","authors":"Tracy Jenkin,&nbsp;Stephanie Kelley,&nbsp;Anton Ovchinnikov,&nbsp;Cecilia Ying","doi":"10.1111/deci.12658","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in operational decision-making is growing, but individuals can display algorithm aversion, preventing adherence to AI system recommendations—even when the system outperforms human decision-makers. Understanding why such algorithm aversion occurs and how to reduce it is important to ensure AI is fully leveraged. While the ability to seek an explanation from an AI may be a promising approach to mitigate this aversion, there is conflicting evidence on their benefits. Based on several behavioral theories, including Bayesian choice, loss aversion, and sunk cost avoidance, we hypothesize that if a recommendation is perceived as an anomalous loss, it will decrease recommendation adherence; however, the effect will be mediated by explanations and differ depending on whether the advisor providing the recommendation and explanation is a human or an AI. We conducted a survey-based lab experiment set in the online rental market space and found that presenting a recommendation as a loss anomaly significantly reduces adherence compared to presenting it as a gain, however, this negative effect can be dampened if the advisor is an AI. We find explanation-seeking has a limited impact on adherence, even after considering the influence of the advisor; we discuss the managerial and theoretical implications of these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":48256,"journal":{"name":"DECISION SCIENCES","volume":"55 6","pages":"653-668"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/deci.12658","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"DECISION SCIENCES","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/deci.12658","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in operational decision-making is growing, but individuals can display algorithm aversion, preventing adherence to AI system recommendations—even when the system outperforms human decision-makers. Understanding why such algorithm aversion occurs and how to reduce it is important to ensure AI is fully leveraged. While the ability to seek an explanation from an AI may be a promising approach to mitigate this aversion, there is conflicting evidence on their benefits. Based on several behavioral theories, including Bayesian choice, loss aversion, and sunk cost avoidance, we hypothesize that if a recommendation is perceived as an anomalous loss, it will decrease recommendation adherence; however, the effect will be mediated by explanations and differ depending on whether the advisor providing the recommendation and explanation is a human or an AI. We conducted a survey-based lab experiment set in the online rental market space and found that presenting a recommendation as a loss anomaly significantly reduces adherence compared to presenting it as a gain, however, this negative effect can be dampened if the advisor is an AI. We find explanation-seeking has a limited impact on adherence, even after considering the influence of the advisor; we discuss the managerial and theoretical implications of these findings.

Abstract Image

在人与人和人与人工智能的互动中寻求解释和异常推荐的遵从性
人工智能(AI)在运营决策中的应用正在增长,但个人可能会表现出对算法的厌恶,从而阻止遵守人工智能系统的建议——即使系统比人类决策者表现得更好。理解为什么会出现这种算法厌恶,以及如何减少这种厌恶,对于确保充分利用人工智能非常重要。虽然向人工智能寻求解释的能力可能是缓解这种厌恶情绪的一种有希望的方法,但关于它们的好处,存在相互矛盾的证据。基于贝叶斯选择、损失厌恶和沉没成本避免等行为理论,我们假设如果一个推荐被认为是一个异常的损失,它会降低推荐的依从性;然而,这种效果将通过解释来调解,并且根据提供推荐和解释的顾问是人类还是人工智能而有所不同。我们在在线租赁市场领域进行了一项基于调查的实验室实验,发现与将推荐呈现为收益相比,将其呈现为损失异常会显着降低依从性,然而,如果顾问是人工智能,则可以抑制这种负面影响。我们发现,即使考虑了顾问的影响,寻求解释对依从性的影响也是有限的;我们讨论了这些发现的管理和理论意义。
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
DECISION SCIENCES
DECISION SCIENCES MANAGEMENT-
CiteScore
12.40
自引率
1.80%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: Decision Sciences, a premier journal of the Decision Sciences Institute, publishes scholarly research about decision making within the boundaries of an organization, as well as decisions involving inter-firm coordination. The journal promotes research advancing decision making at the interfaces of business functions and organizational boundaries. The journal also seeks articles extending established lines of work assuming the results of the research have the potential to substantially impact either decision making theory or industry practice. Ground-breaking research articles that enhance managerial understanding of decision making processes and stimulate further research in multi-disciplinary domains are particularly encouraged.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信