人们如何应对人工智能的失败?自动化偏差、算法厌恶和感知可控性

IF 5.4 1区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication Pub Date : 2022-11-15 DOI:10.1093/jcmc/zmac029
S Mo Jones-Jang, Yong Jin Park
{"title":"人们如何应对人工智能的失败?自动化偏差、算法厌恶和感知可控性","authors":"S Mo Jones-Jang, Yong Jin Park","doi":"10.1093/jcmc/zmac029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AI can make mistakes and cause unfavorable consequences. It is important to know how people react to such AI-driven negative consequences and subsequently evaluate the fairness of AI’s decisions. This study theorizes and empirically tests two psychological mechanisms that explain the process: (a) heuristic expectations of AI’s consistent performance (automation bias) and subsequent frustration of unfulfilled expectations (algorithmic aversion) and (b) heuristic perceptions of AI’s controllability over negative results. Our findings from two experimental studies reveal that these two mechanisms work in an opposite direction. First, participants tend to display more sensitive responses to AI’s inconsistent performance and thus make more punitive assessments of AI’s decision fairness, when compared to responses to human experts. Second, as participants perceive AI has less control over unfavorable outcomes than human experts, they are more tolerant in their assessments of AI.","PeriodicalId":48319,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication","volume":"151 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How do people react to AI failure? Automation bias, algorithmic aversion, and perceived controllability\",\"authors\":\"S Mo Jones-Jang, Yong Jin Park\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jcmc/zmac029\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"AI can make mistakes and cause unfavorable consequences. It is important to know how people react to such AI-driven negative consequences and subsequently evaluate the fairness of AI’s decisions. This study theorizes and empirically tests two psychological mechanisms that explain the process: (a) heuristic expectations of AI’s consistent performance (automation bias) and subsequent frustration of unfulfilled expectations (algorithmic aversion) and (b) heuristic perceptions of AI’s controllability over negative results. Our findings from two experimental studies reveal that these two mechanisms work in an opposite direction. First, participants tend to display more sensitive responses to AI’s inconsistent performance and thus make more punitive assessments of AI’s decision fairness, when compared to responses to human experts. Second, as participants perceive AI has less control over unfavorable outcomes than human experts, they are more tolerant in their assessments of AI.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48319,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication\",\"volume\":\"151 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmac029\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmac029","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人工智能会犯错误,造成不利的后果。重要的是要知道人们对这种人工智能驱动的负面后果的反应,并随后评估人工智能决策的公平性。本研究对解释这一过程的两种心理机制进行了理论化和实证检验:(a)对人工智能一致表现的启发式期望(自动化偏见)和随后对未实现期望的挫败感(算法厌恶),以及(b)对人工智能对负面结果的可控性的启发式感知。我们从两项实验研究中发现,这两种机制的作用方向相反。首先,与人类专家的反应相比,参与者倾向于对人工智能不一致的表现表现出更敏感的反应,从而对人工智能的决策公平性做出更具惩罚性的评估。其次,由于参与者认为人工智能对不利结果的控制不如人类专家,因此他们对人工智能的评估更加宽容。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
How do people react to AI failure? Automation bias, algorithmic aversion, and perceived controllability
AI can make mistakes and cause unfavorable consequences. It is important to know how people react to such AI-driven negative consequences and subsequently evaluate the fairness of AI’s decisions. This study theorizes and empirically tests two psychological mechanisms that explain the process: (a) heuristic expectations of AI’s consistent performance (automation bias) and subsequent frustration of unfulfilled expectations (algorithmic aversion) and (b) heuristic perceptions of AI’s controllability over negative results. Our findings from two experimental studies reveal that these two mechanisms work in an opposite direction. First, participants tend to display more sensitive responses to AI’s inconsistent performance and thus make more punitive assessments of AI’s decision fairness, when compared to responses to human experts. Second, as participants perceive AI has less control over unfavorable outcomes than human experts, they are more tolerant in their assessments of AI.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.60
自引率
2.80%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: The Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (JCMC) has been a longstanding contributor to the field of computer-mediated communication research. Since its inception in 1995, it has been a pioneer in web-based, peer-reviewed scholarly publications. JCMC encourages interdisciplinary research, welcoming contributions from various disciplines, such as communication, business, education, political science, sociology, psychology, media studies, and information science. The journal's commitment to open access and high-quality standards has solidified its status as a reputable source for scholars exploring the dynamics of communication in the digital age.
期刊最新文献
Momentary motivations for digital disconnection: an experience sampling study Correction by distraction: how high-tempo music enhances medical experts’ debunking TikTok videos Does ostracism/rejection impact self-disclosures? Examining the appeal of perceived social affordances after social threat Subtle momentary effects of social media experiences: an experience sampling study of posting and social comparisons on connectedness and self-esteem Surviving or thriving political defeat on social media: a temporal analysis of how electoral loss exacerbates the gender gap in political expression
×
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