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, Stephanie Kelley, Anton Ovchinnikov, 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.
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.