Personalizing explanations in AI-based decisions: The effects of personalization and (mis)aligning with individual preferences

IF 12.2 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Computers in Human Behavior Pub Date : 2026-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-11-19 DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2025.108854
Richard Uth , Nelli Niemitz , Isabel Valera , Markus Langer
{"title":"Personalizing explanations in AI-based decisions: The effects of personalization and (mis)aligning with individual preferences","authors":"Richard Uth ,&nbsp;Nelli Niemitz ,&nbsp;Isabel Valera ,&nbsp;Markus Langer","doi":"10.1016/j.chb.2025.108854","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The increasing reliance on AI-based decision-making in high-stakes contexts underscores the need for transparency and justice. Here, negative outcomes drive individuals affected by AI-based decisions to seek actionable explanations that enable them to realize what they can do to achieve a better future outcome. However, actionability is subjective, varying across individuals and contexts. Personalization of explanations has been proposed to address this variability, but insights on personalized explanation processes, their potential, and challenges are scarce. This paper investigates the impact of personalization and (mis)alignment with individual needs and preferences in explanations for AI-based decisions through an experimental online study simulating denied loan applications. In a within-participants design (<em>N</em> <span><math><mo>=</mo></math></span> 255), participants ranked the actionability of decision-relevant features and experienced five explanation conditions: personalized directive explanations based on the most, second most, or least actionable feature (as ranked by participants); a non-personalized directive explanation highlighting a random feature; and no explanation. In line with justice theory, our results show that any explanation was better than none, and that personalized explanations led to more favorable reactions than non-personalized explanations, enhancing perceptions of justice and attractiveness of the bank. Closer alignment with preferences had only small positive effects, mainly for attractiveness. These findings highlight that even simple ranking-based approaches can make explanations more effective and accessible without requiring technical expertise while cautioning against offering superficial control. This study provides insights into the effects of ranking-based personalization, informing the design of explainability tailored to diverse user needs and addressing ethical and practical considerations in personalization.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48471,"journal":{"name":"Computers in Human Behavior","volume":"177 ","pages":"Article 108854"},"PeriodicalIF":12.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computers in Human Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563225003012","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/11/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The increasing reliance on AI-based decision-making in high-stakes contexts underscores the need for transparency and justice. Here, negative outcomes drive individuals affected by AI-based decisions to seek actionable explanations that enable them to realize what they can do to achieve a better future outcome. However, actionability is subjective, varying across individuals and contexts. Personalization of explanations has been proposed to address this variability, but insights on personalized explanation processes, their potential, and challenges are scarce. This paper investigates the impact of personalization and (mis)alignment with individual needs and preferences in explanations for AI-based decisions through an experimental online study simulating denied loan applications. In a within-participants design (N = 255), participants ranked the actionability of decision-relevant features and experienced five explanation conditions: personalized directive explanations based on the most, second most, or least actionable feature (as ranked by participants); a non-personalized directive explanation highlighting a random feature; and no explanation. In line with justice theory, our results show that any explanation was better than none, and that personalized explanations led to more favorable reactions than non-personalized explanations, enhancing perceptions of justice and attractiveness of the bank. Closer alignment with preferences had only small positive effects, mainly for attractiveness. These findings highlight that even simple ranking-based approaches can make explanations more effective and accessible without requiring technical expertise while cautioning against offering superficial control. This study provides insights into the effects of ranking-based personalization, informing the design of explainability tailored to diverse user needs and addressing ethical and practical considerations in personalization.
基于人工智能的决策中的个性化解释:个性化和(错误地)与个人偏好一致的影响
在高风险环境中越来越依赖基于人工智能的决策,凸显了透明度和正义的必要性。在这里,负面结果会促使受人工智能决策影响的个人寻求可行的解释,使他们意识到自己可以做些什么来实现更好的未来结果。然而,可操作性是主观的,因个人和环境而异。解释的个性化已经被提出来解决这种可变性,但是对个性化解释过程、它们的潜力和挑战的见解很少。本文通过一项模拟贷款申请被拒的实验性在线研究,研究了个性化和(错误地)与个人需求和偏好在解释基于人工智能的决策时的影响。在参与者内部设计(N = 255)中,参与者对决策相关特征的可操作性进行排名,并经历五种解释条件:基于最具可操作性、第二具可操作性或最不具可操作性特征的个性化指令解释(根据参与者的排名);强调随机特征的非个性化指令解释;也没有解释。与公平理论一致,我们的研究结果表明,任何解释都比没有解释好,个性化解释比非个性化解释导致更有利的反应,增强了对银行的公平和吸引力的感知。与偏好更紧密的联系只有很小的积极影响,主要是对吸引力的影响。这些发现强调,即使是简单的基于排名的方法也可以使解释更有效,更容易理解,而不需要技术专长,同时警告不要提供肤浅的控制。本研究提供了基于排名的个性化效果的见解,为针对不同用户需求量身定制的可解释性设计提供了信息,并解决了个性化中的道德和实际考虑因素。
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
CiteScore
19.10
自引率
4.00%
发文量
381
审稿时长
40 days
期刊介绍: Computers in Human Behavior is a scholarly journal that explores the psychological aspects of computer use. It covers original theoretical works, research reports, literature reviews, and software and book reviews. The journal examines both the use of computers in psychology, psychiatry, and related fields, and the psychological impact of computer use on individuals, groups, and society. Articles discuss topics such as professional practice, training, research, human development, learning, cognition, personality, and social interactions. It focuses on human interactions with computers, considering the computer as a medium through which human behaviors are shaped and expressed. Professionals interested in the psychological aspects of computer use will find this journal valuable, even with limited knowledge of computers.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书