Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Appropriate Reliance on AI Advice: Conceptualization and the Effect of Explanations

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2302.02187 v3 pith:3AN62HYX submitted 2023-02-04 cs.AI cs.HC

classification cs.AIcs.HC
keywords advicerelianceexplanationsappropriatebehaviorconcepteffectmeasurement
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

AI advice is becoming increasingly popular, e.g., in investment and medical treatment decisions. As this advice is typically imperfect, decision-makers have to exert discretion as to whether actually follow that advice: they have to "appropriately" rely on correct and turn down incorrect advice. However, current research on appropriate reliance still lacks a common definition as well as an operational measurement concept. Additionally, no in-depth behavioral experiments have been conducted that help understand the factors influencing this behavior. In this paper, we propose Appropriateness of Reliance (AoR) as an underlying, quantifiable two-dimensional measurement concept. We develop a research model that analyzes the effect of providing explanations for AI advice. In an experiment with 200 participants, we demonstrate how these explanations influence the AoR, and, thus, the effectiveness of AI advice. Our work contributes fundamental concepts for the analysis of reliance behavior and the purposeful design of AI advisors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools