Algorithms in selection decisions: Effective, but unappreciated

IF 1.8 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Pub Date : 2024-02-11 DOI:10.1002/bdm.2368
Hagai Rabinovitch, David V. Budescu, Yoella Bereby Meyer
{"title":"Algorithms in selection decisions: Effective, but unappreciated","authors":"Hagai Rabinovitch,&nbsp;David V. Budescu,&nbsp;Yoella Bereby Meyer","doi":"10.1002/bdm.2368","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Selection decisions are often affected by irrelevant variables such as gender or race. People can discount this irrelevant information by adjusting their predictions accordingly, yet they fail to do so intuitively. In five online studies (<i>N</i> = 1077), participants were asked to make selection decisions in which the selection test was affected by irrelevant attributes. We examined whether in such decisions people are willing to be advised by algorithms, human advisors or prefer to decide without advice. We found that people fail to adjust for irrelevant information by themselves, and those who received advice from an algorithm or human advisor made better decisions. Interestingly, although most participants stated they prefer advice from human advisors, they tend to rely equally on algorithms in actual selection tasks. The sole exception is when they are forced to choose between an algorithm and a human advisor. In that case, they pick human advisors. We conclude that while algorithms may not be people's preferred source of advice in selection decisions, they are equally useful and can be implemented.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.2368","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.2368","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Selection decisions are often affected by irrelevant variables such as gender or race. People can discount this irrelevant information by adjusting their predictions accordingly, yet they fail to do so intuitively. In five online studies (N = 1077), participants were asked to make selection decisions in which the selection test was affected by irrelevant attributes. We examined whether in such decisions people are willing to be advised by algorithms, human advisors or prefer to decide without advice. We found that people fail to adjust for irrelevant information by themselves, and those who received advice from an algorithm or human advisor made better decisions. Interestingly, although most participants stated they prefer advice from human advisors, they tend to rely equally on algorithms in actual selection tasks. The sole exception is when they are forced to choose between an algorithm and a human advisor. In that case, they pick human advisors. We conclude that while algorithms may not be people's preferred source of advice in selection decisions, they are equally useful and can be implemented.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
遴选决策中的算法:有效,但不受重视
选拔决策往往会受到性别或种族等无关变量的影响。人们可以通过相应调整自己的预测来忽略这些不相关的信息,但他们却不能凭直觉这样做。在五项在线研究(N = 1077)中,参与者被要求做出选择决策,其中选择测试受到无关属性的影响。我们研究了在此类决策中,人们是愿意接受算法、人类顾问的建议,还是更愿意在没有建议的情况下做出决定。我们发现,人们无法自行调整无关信息,而接受算法或人工顾问建议的人则能做出更好的决策。有趣的是,尽管大多数参与者表示他们更喜欢人类顾问的建议,但在实际选择任务中,他们往往同样依赖算法。唯一的例外是,当他们被迫在算法和人类顾问之间做出选择时。在这种情况下,他们会选择人类顾问。我们的结论是,虽然算法可能不是人们在选择决策中首选的建议来源,但它们同样有用,而且可以实施。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
5.00%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The Journal of Behavioral Decision Making is a multidisciplinary journal with a broad base of content and style. It publishes original empirical reports, critical review papers, theoretical analyses and methodological contributions. The Journal also features book, software and decision aiding technique reviews, abstracts of important articles published elsewhere and teaching suggestions. The objective of the Journal is to present and stimulate behavioral research on decision making and to provide a forum for the evaluation of complementary, contrasting and conflicting perspectives. These perspectives include psychology, management science, sociology, political science and economics. Studies of behavioral decision making in naturalistic and applied settings are encouraged.
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of Extended Decision Outcomes Diffusion of Responsibility for Actions With Advice Dynamics of Reliance on Algorithmic Advice PDOSPERT: A New Scale to Predict Domain-Specific Risk-Taking Behaviors in Times of a Pandemic Variation in Valence Intensity Within Frames: Testing Predictions of Prospect Theory and Fuzzy-Trace Theory
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1