术语如何影响用户对系统故障的响应。

IF 2.9 3区 心理学 Q1 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES Human Factors Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-21 DOI:10.1177/00187208231202572
Cindy Candrian, Anne Scherer
{"title":"术语如何影响用户对系统故障的响应。","authors":"Cindy Candrian, Anne Scherer","doi":"10.1177/00187208231202572","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of our research is to advance the understanding of behavioral responses to a system's error. By examining trust as a dynamic variable and drawing from attribution theory, we explain the underlying mechanism and suggest how terminology can be used to mitigate the so-called algorithm aversion. In this way, we show that the use of different terms may shape consumers' perceptions and provide guidance on how these differences can be mitigated.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Previous research has interchangeably used various terms to refer to a system and results regarding trust in systems have been ambiguous.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Across three studies, we examine the effect of different system terminology on consumer behavior following a system failure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our results show that terminology crucially affects user behavior. Describing a system as \"AI\" (i.e., self-learning and perceived as more complex) instead of as \"algorithmic\" (i.e., a less complex rule-based system) leads to more favorable behavioral responses by users when a system error occurs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We suggest that in cases when a system's characteristics do not allow for it to be called \"AI,\" users should be provided with an explanation of why the system's error occurred, and task complexity should be pointed out. We highlight the importance of terminology, as this can unintentionally impact the robustness and replicability of research findings.</p><p><strong>Application: </strong>This research offers insights for industries utilizing AI and algorithmic systems, highlighting how strategic terminology use can shape user trust and response to errors, thereby enhancing system acceptance.</p>","PeriodicalId":56333,"journal":{"name":"Human Factors","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11141081/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Terminology Affects Users' Responses to System Failures.\",\"authors\":\"Cindy Candrian, Anne Scherer\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00187208231202572\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of our research is to advance the understanding of behavioral responses to a system's error. By examining trust as a dynamic variable and drawing from attribution theory, we explain the underlying mechanism and suggest how terminology can be used to mitigate the so-called algorithm aversion. In this way, we show that the use of different terms may shape consumers' perceptions and provide guidance on how these differences can be mitigated.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Previous research has interchangeably used various terms to refer to a system and results regarding trust in systems have been ambiguous.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Across three studies, we examine the effect of different system terminology on consumer behavior following a system failure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our results show that terminology crucially affects user behavior. Describing a system as \\\"AI\\\" (i.e., self-learning and perceived as more complex) instead of as \\\"algorithmic\\\" (i.e., a less complex rule-based system) leads to more favorable behavioral responses by users when a system error occurs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We suggest that in cases when a system's characteristics do not allow for it to be called \\\"AI,\\\" users should be provided with an explanation of why the system's error occurred, and task complexity should be pointed out. We highlight the importance of terminology, as this can unintentionally impact the robustness and replicability of research findings.</p><p><strong>Application: </strong>This research offers insights for industries utilizing AI and algorithmic systems, highlighting how strategic terminology use can shape user trust and response to errors, thereby enhancing system acceptance.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56333,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Human Factors\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11141081/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Human Factors\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208231202572\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/21 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Factors","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208231202572","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:我们研究的目的是促进对系统错误的行为反应的理解。通过将信任视为一个动态变量并借鉴归因理论,我们解释了潜在的机制,并建议如何使用术语来缓解所谓的算法厌恶。通过这种方式,我们表明,使用不同的术语可能会影响消费者的认知,并为如何减轻这些差异提供指导。背景:先前的研究交替使用各种术语来指代系统,关于系统中的信任的结果一直不明确。方法:在三项研究中,我们考察了不同的系统术语对系统故障后消费者行为的影响。结果:我们的研究结果表明,术语对用户行为的影响至关重要。当系统错误发生时,将系统描述为“AI”(即自学习和感知更复杂),而不是“算法”(即不太复杂的基于规则的系统)会导致用户做出更有利的行为反应。结论:我们建议,在系统的特性不允许将其称为“AI”的情况下,应向用户解释系统错误发生的原因,并指出任务的复杂性。我们强调了术语的重要性,因为这可能会无意中影响研究结果的稳健性和可复制性。应用:这项研究为使用人工智能和算法系统的行业提供了见解,强调了战略性术语的使用如何影响用户信任和对错误的反应,从而提高系统的接受度。
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 Terminology Affects Users' Responses to System Failures.

Objective: The objective of our research is to advance the understanding of behavioral responses to a system's error. By examining trust as a dynamic variable and drawing from attribution theory, we explain the underlying mechanism and suggest how terminology can be used to mitigate the so-called algorithm aversion. In this way, we show that the use of different terms may shape consumers' perceptions and provide guidance on how these differences can be mitigated.

Background: Previous research has interchangeably used various terms to refer to a system and results regarding trust in systems have been ambiguous.

Methods: Across three studies, we examine the effect of different system terminology on consumer behavior following a system failure.

Results: Our results show that terminology crucially affects user behavior. Describing a system as "AI" (i.e., self-learning and perceived as more complex) instead of as "algorithmic" (i.e., a less complex rule-based system) leads to more favorable behavioral responses by users when a system error occurs.

Conclusion: We suggest that in cases when a system's characteristics do not allow for it to be called "AI," users should be provided with an explanation of why the system's error occurred, and task complexity should be pointed out. We highlight the importance of terminology, as this can unintentionally impact the robustness and replicability of research findings.

Application: This research offers insights for industries utilizing AI and algorithmic systems, highlighting how strategic terminology use can shape user trust and response to errors, thereby enhancing system acceptance.

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
Human Factors
Human Factors 管理科学-行为科学
CiteScore
10.60
自引率
6.10%
发文量
99
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society publishes peer-reviewed scientific studies in human factors/ergonomics that present theoretical and practical advances concerning the relationship between people and technologies, tools, environments, and systems. Papers published in Human Factors leverage fundamental knowledge of human capabilities and limitations – and the basic understanding of cognitive, physical, behavioral, physiological, social, developmental, affective, and motivational aspects of human performance – to yield design principles; enhance training, selection, and communication; and ultimately improve human-system interfaces and sociotechnical systems that lead to safer and more effective outcomes.
期刊最新文献
Attentional Tunneling in Pilots During a Visual Tracking Task With a Head Mounted Display. Examining Patterns and Predictors of ADHD Teens' Skill-Learning Trajectories During Enhanced FOrward Concentration and Attention Learning (FOCAL+) Training. Is Less Sometimes More? An Experimental Comparison of Four Measures of Perceived Usability. An Automobile's Tail Lights: Sacrificing Safety for Playful Design? Virtual Reality Adaptive Training for Personalized Stress Inoculation.
×
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