skip to main content
10.1145/3301275.3302308acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiuiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

I can do better than your AI: expertise and explanations

Published:17 March 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Intelligent assistants, such as navigation, recommender, and expert systems, are most helpful in situations where users lack domain knowledge. Despite this, recent research in cognitive psychology has revealed that lower-skilled individuals may maintain a sense of illusory superiority, which might suggest that users with the highest need for advice may be the least likely to defer judgment. Explanation interfaces - a method for persuading users to take a system's advice - are thought by many to be the solution for instilling trust, but do their effects hold for self-assured users? To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a quantitative study (N=529) wherein participants played a binary decision-making game with help from an intelligent assistant. Participants were profiled in terms of both actual (measured) expertise and reported familiarity with the task concept. The presence of explanations, level of automation, and number of errors made by the intelligent assistant were manipulated while observing changes in user acceptance of advice. An analysis of cognitive metrics lead to three findings for research in intelligent assistants: 1) higher reported familiarity with the task simultaneously predicted more reported trust but less adherence, 2) explanations only swayed people who reported very low task familiarity, and 3) showing explanations to people who reported more task familiarity led to automation bias.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

p240-schaffer.mp4

mp4

155.5 MB

References

  1. Vicky Arnold, Nicole Clark, Philip A Collier, Stewart A Leech, and Steve G Sutton. 2006. The differential use and effect of knowledge-based system explanations in novice and expert judgment decisions. Mis Quarterly (2006), 79--97. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Robert Axelrod and Robert M Axelrod. 1984. The evolution of cooperation. Vol. 5145. Basic Books (AZ).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Yoav Benjamini and Yosef Hochberg. 1995. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the royal statistical society. Series B (Methodological) (1995), 289--300.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Shlomo Berkovsky, Ronnie Taib, and Dan Conway. 2017. How to Recommend?: User Trust Factors in Movie Recommender Systems. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. ACM, 287--300. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. John Boddy, Annabel Carver, and Kevin Rowley. 1986. Effects of positive and negative verbal reinforcement on performance as a function of extraversion-introversion: Some tests of Gray's theory. Personality and Individual Differences 7, 1 (1986), 81--88.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Donald T Campbell and Donald W Fiske. 1959. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological bulletin 56, 2 (1959), 81.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Jennifer A Chatman and Sigal G Barsade. 1995. Personality, organizational culture, and cooperation: Evidence from a business simulation. Administrative Science Quarterly (1995), 423--443.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Jessie YC Chen and Michael J Barnes. 2014. Human-agent teaming for multirobot control: A review of human factors issues. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems 44, 1 (2014), 13--29.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Jessie Y Chen, Katelyn Procci, Michael Boyce, Julia Wright, Andre Garcia, and Michael Barnes. 2014. Situation Awareness-Based Agent Transparency. Technical Report. DTIC Document.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Yu-Hui Chen and Stuart Barnes. 2007. Initial trust and online buyer behaviour. Industrial management & data systems 107, 1 (2007), 21--36.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Ahyoung Choi, Celso M de Melo, Peter Khooshabeh, Woontack Woo, and Jonathan Gratch. 2015. Physiological evidence for a dual process model of the social effects of emotion in computers. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 74 (2015), 41--53. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Robert A Cribbie. 2007. Multiplicity control in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling 14, 1 (2007), 98--112.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Mary Cummings. 2004. Automation bias in intelligent time critical decision support systems. In AIAA 1st Intelligent Systems Technical Conference. 6313.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Janet E Davidson and CL Downing. 2000. Contemporary models of intelligence. Handbook of intelligence (2000), 34--49.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Robyn M Dawes and Richard H Thaler. 1988. Anomalies: cooperation. The Journal of Economic Perspectives (1988), 187--197.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. David Dunning. 2011. 5 The Dunning-Kruger Effect: On Being Ignorant of One's Own Ignorance. Advances in experimental social psychology 44 (2011), 247.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Mica R Endsley. 1988. Situation awareness global assessment technique (SAGAT). In Aerospace and Electronics Conference, 1988. NAECON 1988., Proceedings of the IEEE 1988 National. IEEE, 789--795.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Mica R Endsley. 2000. Direct measurement of situation awareness: Validity and use of SAGAT. Situation awareness analysis and measurement 10 (2000).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Mica R Endsley and Daniel J Garland. 2000. Situation awareness analysis and measurement. CRC Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Renee Engeln-Maddox. 2005. Cognitive responses to idealized media images of women: The relationship of social comparison and critical processing to body image disturbance in college women. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 24, 8 (2005), 1114--1138.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Martin J Eppler and Jeanne Mengis. 2004. The concept of information overload: A review of literature from organization science, accounting, marketing, MIS, and related disciplines. The information society 20, 5 (2004), 325--344.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Brian J Fogg. 2002. Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do. Ubiquity 2002, December (2002), 5. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. William H Gladstones, Michael A Regan, and Robert B Lee. 1989. Division of attention: The single-channel hypothesis revisited. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 41, 1 (1989), 1--17.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Natalie S Glance and Bernardo A Huberman. 1994. The dynamics of social dilemmas. Scientific American 270, 3 (1994), 76--81.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Lewis R Goldberg. 1993. The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American psychologist 48, 1 (1993), 26.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. E Bruce Goldstein. 2014. Cognitive psychology: Connecting mind, research and everyday experience. Nelson Education.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. C Gonzalez, N Ben-Asher, JM Martin, and V Dutt. 2013. Emergence of cooperation with increased information: Explaining the process with instance-based learning models. Unpublished manuscript under review (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Shirley Gregor and Izak Benbasat. 1999. Explanations from intelligent systems: Theoretical foundations and implications for practice. MIS quarterly (1999), 497--530. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. David Gunning. 2017. Explainable artificial intelligence (xai). Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), nd Web (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Jason L Harman, John O'Donovan, Tarek Abdelzaher, and Cleotilde Gonzalez. 2014. Dynamics of human trust in recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Recommender systems. ACM, 305--308. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Morten Hertzum, Hans HK Andersen, Verner Andersen, and Camilla B Hansen. 2002. Trust in information sources: seeking information from people, documents, and virtual agents. Interacting with computers 14, 5 (2002), 575--599.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. David Hitchcock and Bart Verheij. 2006. Arguing on the Toulmin model. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Vera Hoorens. 1993. Self-enhancement and superiority biases in social comparison. European review of social psychology 4, 1 (1993), 113--139.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Jason D Johnson, Julian Sanchez, Arthur D Fisk, and Wendy A Rogers. 2004. Type of automation failure: The effects on trust and reliance in automation. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 48. SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 2163--2167.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. John Kagel and Peter McGee. 2014. Personality and cooperation in finitely repeated prisonerâĂŹs dilemma games. Economics Letters 124, 2 (2014), 274--277.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Bart P Knijnenburg, Svetlin Bostandjiev, John O'Donovan, and Alfred Kobsa. 2012. Inspectability and control in social recommenders. In Proceedings of the sixth ACM conference on Recommender systems. ACM, 43--50. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Bart P Knijnenburg and Alfred Kobsa. 2013. Making decisions about privacy: information disclosure in context-aware recommender systems. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS) 3, 3 (2013), 20. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Sherrie YX Komiak and Izak Benbasat. 2006. The effects of personalization and familiarity on trust and adoption of recommendation agents. MIS quarterly (2006), 941--960. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Yehuda Koren and Robert Bell. 2015. Advances in collaborative filtering. In Recommender systems handbook. Springer, 77--118.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Marios Koufaris and William Hampton-Sosa. 2002. Customer trust online: examining the role of the experience with the Web-site. Department of Statistics and Computer Information Systems Working Paper Series, Zicklin School of Business, Baruch College, New York (2002).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Justin Kruger. 1999. Lake Wobegon be gone! The" below-average effect" and the egocentric nature of comparative ability judgments. Journal of personality and social psychology 77, 2 (1999), 221.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Justin Kruger and David Dunning. 1999. Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of personality and social psychology 77, 6 (1999), 1121.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Guan-Chyun Lin, Zhonglin Wen, Herbert W Marsh, and Huey-Shyan Lin. 2010. Structural equation models of latent interactions: Clarification of orthogonalizing and double-mean-centering strategies. Structural Equation Modeling 17, 3 (2010), 374--391.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Charles G Lord, Lee Ross, and Mark R Lepper. 1979. Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of personality and social psychology 37, 11 (1979), 2098.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Jolie M Martin, Ion Juvina, Christian Lebiere, and Cleotilde Gonzalez. 2011. The effects of individual and context on aggression in repeated social interaction. In Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics. Springer, 442--451. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. D Harrison Mcknight, Michelle Carter, Jason Bennett Thatcher, and Paul F Clay. 2011. Trust in a specific technology: An investigation of its components and measures. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems (TMIS) 2, 2 (2011), 12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Harrison McKnight, Michelle Carter, and Paul Clay. 2009. Trust in technology: development of a set of constructs and measures. Digit 2009 Proceedings (2009), 10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Kimberly Merritt, D Smith, and JCD Renzo. 2005. An investigation of self-reported computer literacy: Is it reliable. Issues in Information Systems 6, 1 (2005), 289--295.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Ingrid Nunes and Dietmar Jannach. 2017. A systematic review and taxonomy of explanations in decision support and recommender systems. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 27, 3-5 (2017), 393--444. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. John O'Donovan and Barry Smyth. 2005. Trust in recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces. ACM, 167--174. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Anatol Rapoport and Albert M Chammah. 1965. Prisoner's dilemma: A study in conflict and cooperation. Vol. 165. University of Michigan press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Maha Salem, Gabriella Lakatos, Farshid Amirabdollahian, and Kerstin Dautenhahn. 2015. Would you trust a (faulty) robot?: Effects of error, task type and personality on human-robot cooperation and trust. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. ACM, 141--148. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. James Schaffer, John OâĂŹDonovan, Laura Marusich, Michael Yu, Cleotilde Gonzalez, and Tobias Höllerer. 2018. A study of dynamic information display and decision-making in abstract trust games. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 113 (2018), 1--14. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Mohsen Tavakol and Reg Dennick. 2011. Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International journal of medical education 2 (2011), 53.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Jodie B Ullman and Peter M Bentler. 2003. Structural equation modeling. Wiley Online Library.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Weiquan Wang and Izak Benbasat. 2007. Recommendation agents for electronic commerce: Effects of explanation facilities on trusting beliefs. Journal of Management Information Systems 23, 4 (2007), 217--246. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Kun Yu, Shlomo Berkovsky, Ronnie Taib, Dan Conway, Jianlong Zhou, and Fang Chen. 2017. User trust dynamics: An investigation driven by differences in system performance. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. ACM, 307--317. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. I can do better than your AI: expertise and explanations

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          IUI '19: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces
          March 2019
          713 pages
          ISBN:9781450362726
          DOI:10.1145/3301275

          Copyright © 2019 ACM

          © 2019 Association for Computing Machinery. ACM acknowledges that this contribution was authored or co-authored by an employee, contractor or affiliate of the United States government. As such, the United States Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to publish or reproduce this article, or to allow others to do so, for Government purposes only.

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 17 March 2019

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          IUI '19 Paper Acceptance Rate71of282submissions,25%Overall Acceptance Rate746of2,811submissions,27%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader