In human-machine trust, humans rely on a simple averaging strategy.

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Cognitive Research-Principles and Implications Pub Date : 2024-09-02 DOI:10.1186/s41235-024-00583-5
Jonathon Love, Quentin F Gronau, Gemma Palmer, Ami Eidels, Scott D Brown
{"title":"In human-machine trust, humans rely on a simple averaging strategy.","authors":"Jonathon Love, Quentin F Gronau, Gemma Palmer, Ami Eidels, Scott D Brown","doi":"10.1186/s41235-024-00583-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>With the growing role of artificial intelligence (AI) in our lives, attention is increasingly turning to the way that humans and AI work together. A key aspect of human-AI collaboration is how people integrate judgements or recommendations from machine agents, when they differ from their own judgements. We investigated trust in human-machine teaming using a perceptual judgement task based on the judge-advisor system. Participants ( <math><mrow><mi>n</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>89</mn></mrow> </math> ) estimated a perceptual quantity, then received a recommendation from a machine agent. The participants then made a second response which combined their first estimate and the machine's recommendation. The degree to which participants shifted their second response in the direction of the recommendations provided a measure of their trust in the machine agent. We analysed the role of advice distance in people's willingness to change their judgements. When a recommendation falls a long way from their initial judgement, do people come to doubt their own judgement, trusting the recommendation more, or do they doubt the machine agent, trusting the recommendation less? We found that although some participants exhibited these behaviours, the most common response was neither of these tendencies, and a simple model based on averaging accounted best for participants' trust behaviour. We discuss implications for theories of trust, and human-machine teaming.</p>","PeriodicalId":46827,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Research-Principles and Implications","volume":"9 1","pages":"58"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11366733/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Research-Principles and Implications","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-024-00583-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

With the growing role of artificial intelligence (AI) in our lives, attention is increasingly turning to the way that humans and AI work together. A key aspect of human-AI collaboration is how people integrate judgements or recommendations from machine agents, when they differ from their own judgements. We investigated trust in human-machine teaming using a perceptual judgement task based on the judge-advisor system. Participants ( n = 89 ) estimated a perceptual quantity, then received a recommendation from a machine agent. The participants then made a second response which combined their first estimate and the machine's recommendation. The degree to which participants shifted their second response in the direction of the recommendations provided a measure of their trust in the machine agent. We analysed the role of advice distance in people's willingness to change their judgements. When a recommendation falls a long way from their initial judgement, do people come to doubt their own judgement, trusting the recommendation more, or do they doubt the machine agent, trusting the recommendation less? We found that although some participants exhibited these behaviours, the most common response was neither of these tendencies, and a simple model based on averaging accounted best for participants' trust behaviour. We discuss implications for theories of trust, and human-machine teaming.

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
在人机信任中,人类依靠的是一种简单的平均策略。
随着人工智能(AI)在我们生活中的作用越来越大,人们越来越关注人类与人工智能的合作方式。人类与人工智能合作的一个关键方面是,当机器代理的判断或建议与自己的判断不同时,人们如何整合这些判断或建议。我们使用基于 "法官-顾问 "系统的感知判断任务调查了人机合作中的信任问题。参与者(89 人)估计了一个感知量,然后收到了一个机器代理的推荐。然后,参与者结合第一次估计和机器的建议做出第二次反应。参与者在第二次回答时向建议方向移动的程度可以衡量他们对机器代理的信任程度。我们分析了建议距离在人们改变判断的意愿中所起的作用。当建议与人们最初的判断相差甚远时,人们是会怀疑自己的判断,从而更加信任建议,还是会怀疑机器代理,从而减少对建议的信任?我们发现,虽然有些参与者表现出了这些行为,但最常见的反应是这两种倾向都没有,而基于平均值的简单模型最能解释参与者的信任行为。我们讨论了信任理论和人机合作理论的意义。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
7.30%
发文量
96
审稿时长
25 weeks
期刊最新文献
Delay discounting predicts COVID-19 vaccine booster willingness. Emotions in misinformation studies: distinguishing affective state from emotional response and misinformation recognition from acceptance. Acquiring complex concepts through classification versus observation. The roles of cognitive dissonance and normative reasoning in attributions of minds to robots. Older adults' recognition of medical terminology in hospital noise.
×
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