Using Toulmin's Argumentation Model to Enhance Trust in Analytics-Based Advice Giving Systems

Ecommerce websites increasingly provide predictive analytics-based advice (PAA), such as advice about future potential price reductions. Establishing consumer-trust in these advice-giving systems imposes unique and novel challenges. First, PAA about future alternatives that can benefit the consumer appears to inherently contradict the business goal of selling a product quickly and at high profit margins. Second, PAA is based on mathematical models that are non-transparent to the user. Third, PAA advice is inherently uncertain, and can be perceived as subjectively imposed in algorithms. Utilizing Toulmin's argumentation-model, we investigate the influence of advice-justification statements in overcoming these difficulties. Based on three experimental studies, in which respondents are provided with the advice of PAA systems, we show evidence for the different roles Toulmin's statement-types play in enhancing various trusting-beliefs in PAA systems. Provision of warrants is mostly associated with enhanced competence beliefs; rebuttals with integrity beliefs; backings both competence and benevolence; and data statements enhance competence, integrity, and benevolence beliefs. Implications of the findings for research and practice are provided.