Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates how decision workflow (1-step vs. 2-step) and explanations impact trust and reliance in AI-assisted decision making, considering user domain knowledge and AI experience. The study found that a 2-step decision workflow does not necessarily reduce overreliance, and the effect of explanations on self-reported trust is dependent on the decision workflow and user domain knowledge. The research also reinforces the distinction between self-reported trust and reliance behavior, advocating for their separate evaluation.
The common belief that a two-step decision workflow reduces overreliance on AI advice doesn't hold up, and the effectiveness of explanations hinges on the specific workflow and user expertise.
A central challenge in AI-assisted decision making is achieving warranted, well-calibrated trust. Both overtrust (accepting incorrect AI recommendations) and undertrust (rejecting correct advice) should be prevented. Prior studies differ in the design of the decision workflow - whether users see the AI suggestion immediately (1-step setup) or have to submit a first decision beforehand (2-step setup) -, and in how trust is measured - through self-reports or as behavioral trust, that is, reliance. We examined the effects and interactions of (a) the type of decision workflow, (b) the presence of explanations, and (c) users'domain knowledge and prior AI experience. We compared reported trust, reliance (agreement rate and switch rate), and overreliance. Results showed no evidence that a 2-step setup reduces overreliance. The decision workflow also did not directly affect self-reported trust, but there was a crossover interaction effect with domain knowledge and explanations, suggesting that the effects of explanations alone may not generalize across workflow setups. Finally, our findings confirm that reported trust and reliance behavior are distinct constructs that should be evaluated separately in AI-assisted decision making.
