CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 28Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyArtificial Intelligence Applications

Advice from artificial intelligence: a review and practical implications

Open access
Baines, Julia I., Dalal, Reeshad S., Ponce, Lida P., Tsai, Ho-Chun·2024·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1390182PMC PMC11493662
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Despite considerable behavioral and organizational research on advice from human advisors, and despite the increasing study of artificial intelligence (AI) in organizational research, workplace-related applications, and popular discourse, an interdisciplinary review of advice from AI (vs. human) advisors has yet to be undertaken. We argue that the increasing adoption of AI to augment human decision-making would benefit from a framework that can characterize such interactions. Thus, the current research invokes judgment and decision-making research on advice from human advisors and uses a conceptual “fit”-based model to: (1) summarize how the characteristics of the AI advisor, human decision-maker, and advice environment influence advice exchanges and outcomes (including informed speculation about the durability of such findings in light of rapid advances in AI technology), (2) delineate future research directions (along with specific predictions), and (3) provide practical implications involving the use of AI advice by human decision-makers in applied settings.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1390182

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The relative influence of, and trade-offs between, human and AI sources of advice in hybrid recruitment remain poorly understood.

    “As Baines et al. (2024) note, the relative influence of, and trade-offs between, human and AI sources of advice in hybrid recruitment remain poorly understood.”

    From When Recruiters Meet Algorithms: Advice Taking and Bias in AI‐Assisted Recruitment (2026) · cites this paper as Baines et al. 2024

    In Discussion > Future research directions (page unavailable), the review says research has not sufficiently examined how agreement between human and AI advisors affects advice use. Practical implications (page unavailable) discusses AI in recruitment, but does not establish that the relative influence of, and trade-offs between, human and AI advice specifically in hybrid recruitment remain poorly understood. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 118

  1. Adamopoulou E. Moussiades L. (2020). An overview of Chatbot technology. Art. Intellig. Appl. Innov. 584, 373– 383. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-49186-4_31 · DOI
  2. Aiman-Smith L. Scullen S. E. Barr S. H. (2002). Conducting studies of decision making in organizational contexts: a tutorial for policy-capturing and other regression-based techniques. Organ. Res. Method. 5, 388– 414. doi: 10.1177/109442802237117 · DOI
  3. Araujo T. Helberger N. Kruikemeier S. De Vreese C. H. (2020). In AI we trust? Perceptions about automated decision-making by artificial intelligence. AI & Soc. 35, 611– 623. doi: 10.1007/s00146-019-00931-w · DOI · Paper page
  4. Battistoni E. Colladon A. F. (2014). Personality correlates of key roles in informal advice networks. Learn. Individ. Differ. 34, 63– 69. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2014.05.007 · DOI
  5. Ben-David D. Sade O. (2021). Robo-advisor adoption, willingness to pay, and trust—before and at the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. SSRN. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3361710 · DOI
  6. Berger B. Adam M. Rühr A. Benlian A. (2020). Watch me improve—algorithm aversion and demonstrating the ability to learn. Bus. Inform. Systems Engrg. 63, 55– 68. doi: 10.1007/s12599-020-00678-5 · DOI
  7. Bianchi M. Briere M. (2021). Robo-advising: less AI and more XAI? SSRN. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3825110 · DOI
  8. Bonaccio S. Dalal R. S. (2010). Evaluating advisors: a policy-capturing study under conditions of complete and missing information. J. Behav. Decis. Making. 23, 227– 249. doi: 10.1002/bdm.649 · DOI
  9. Branley-Bell D. Brown R. Coventry L. Sillence E. (2023). Chatbots for embarrassing and stigmatizing conditions: could chatbots encourage users to seek medical advice? Front. Comm. 8: 1275127. doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2023.1275127 · DOI
  10. Brooks A. W. Gino F. Schweitzer M. E. (2015). Smart people ask for (my) advice: seeking advice boosts perceptions of competence. Manag. Sci. 61, 1421– 1435. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2014.2054 · DOI
  11. Budescu D. V. Yu H.-T. (2007). Aggregation of opinions based on correlated cues and advisors. J. Behav. Human Decis. Making. 20, 153– 177. doi: 10.1002/bdm.547 · DOI
  12. Burton J. W. Stein M. K. Jensen T. B. (2020). A systematic review of algorithm aversion in augmented decision making. J. Behav. Decis. Making. 33, 220– 239. doi: 10.1002/bdm.2155 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Castelo N. Bos M. W. Lehmann D. R. (2019). Task-dependent algorithm aversion. J. Marketing Res. 56, 809– 825. doi: 10.1177/0022243719851788 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Chatterjee S. Fan L. (2021). Older adults’ life satisfaction: the roles of seeking financial advice and personality traits. J. Fin. Ther. 12: 4. doi: 10.4148/1944-9771.1253 · DOI
  15. Cho B. (2019). Study on factors affecting financial investors’ acceptance intention to robo advisor based on UTAUT [Master’s thesis, Seoul National University]. Master Thesis. Available at: https://s-space.snu.ac.kr/bitstream/10371/150835/1/000000154956.pdf
  16. Clemen R. T. (1989). Combining forecasts: a review and annotated bibliography. Int. J. Forecasting. 5, 559– 583. doi: 10.1016/0169-2070(89)90012-5 · DOI
  17. Colquitt J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. J. Appl. Psych. 86, 386– 400. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386, PMID: 11419799 · DOI
  18. Dalal R. S. Baines J. I. (2023). Operationalizing advice utilization for productive research and application: Commentary on Kämmer et al. (2023). Decision. 10, 145– 149. doi: 10.1037/dec0000203 · DOI
  19. Dalal R. S. Bonaccio S. (2010). What types of advice do decision-makers prefer? Organ. Behav. Human Decis. Process. 112, 11– 23. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.11.007 · DOI
  20. Duffy B. R. (2003). Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robot. Auton. Syst. 42, 177– 190. doi: 10.1016/s0921-8890(02)00374-3 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Dunning D. (2011). The Dunning–Kruger effect. Adv. Exp. Soci. Psych. 247– 296. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-12-385522-0.00005-6 · DOI
  22. Ecken P. Pibernik R. (2016). Hit or miss: what leads experts to take advice for long-term judgments? Manag. Sci. 62, 2002– 2021. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2015.2219 · DOI
  23. Edwards J. R. (2008). Person–environment fit in organizations: an assessment of theoretical progress. Acad. Manag. Annals. 2, 167– 230. doi: 10.5465/19416520802211503 · DOI
  24. Enarsson T. Enqvist L. Naarttijärvi M. (2022). Approaching the human in the loop–legal perspectives on hybrid human/algorithmic decision-making in three contexts. Inform. Comm. Technol. Law. 31, 123– 153. doi: 10.1080/13600834.2021.1958860 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Fisch J. E. Labouré M. Turner J. A. (2019). The emergence of the robo-advisor. Disrupt. Impact FinTech Retire. Syst. 13– 37. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780198845553.003.0002 · DOI
  26. Fischer I. Harvey N. (1999). Combining forecasts: what information do judges need to outperform the simple average? Internat. J. Forecasting. 15, 227– 246. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2070(98)00073-9 · DOI
  27. Floridi L. Chiriatti M. (2020). GPT-3: its nature, scope, limits, and consequences. Mind. Mach. 30, 681– 694. doi: 10.1007/s11023-020-09548-1 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Gazit L. (2022). Choosing between human and algorithmic advisors: the role of responsibility-sharing (publication no. 29082284.) [doctoral dissertation, University of Haifa]. Doctoral Dissertation Google.
  29. Gigerenzer G. Brighton H. (2011). Homo heuristicus: why biased minds make better inferences. Heuristics 2– 29. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199744282.003.0001 25164802 · DOI
  30. Gillaizeau F. Chan E. Trinquart L. Colombet I. Walton R. Rège-Walther M.. (2013). Computerized advice on drug dosage to improve prescribing practice. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 11: CD002894. doi: 10.1002/14651858.cd002894.pub3, PMID: 24218045 PMC11393523 · DOI
  31. Gino F. Brooks A. W. Schweitzer M. E. (2012). Anxiety, advice, and the ability to discern: feeling anxious motivates individuals to seek and use advice. J. Personal. Soci. Psych. 102, 497– 512. doi: 10.1037/a0026413, PMID: 22121890 · DOI
  32. Griffith E. E. Kadous K. Proell C. A. (2020). Friends in low places: How peer advice and expected leadership feedback affect staff auditors’ willingness to speak up. Accounting, Organizations and Society. 87: 101153. doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2020.101153 · DOI
  33. Hakli R. Mäkelä P. (2019). Moral responsibility of robots and hybrid agents. Monist. 102, 259– 275. doi: 10.1093/monist/onz009 · DOI
  34. Hertz N. (2018). Non-human factors: exploring conformity and compliance with non-human agents (publication no. 13421081). [doctoral dissertation, George Mason University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
  35. Himmelstein M. Budescu D. V. (2023). Preference for human or algorithmic forecasting advice does not predict if and how it is used. J. Behav. Decision Making. 36: e2285. doi: 10.1002/bdm.2285 · DOI
  36. Hou Y. T.-Y. Jung M. F. (2021). Who is the expert? Reconciling algorithm aversion and algorithm appreciation in AI-supported decision making. Proc ACM Hum Comput Interact 5, 1– 25. doi: 10.1145/347986436644216 · DOI
  37. Hsu C. W. Gross J. Hayne H. (2021). Don’t send an avatar to do a human’s job: investigating adults’ preferences for discussing embarrassing topics with an avatar. Behav. & Inform. Technology. 41, 2941– 2951. doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2021.1966099 · DOI
  38. Hunkenschroer A. L. Luetge C. (2022). Ethics of AI-enabled recruiting and selection: a review and research agenda. J. Bus. Ethics 178, 977– 1007. doi: 10.1007/s10551-022-05049-6 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Hütter M. Ache F. (2016). Seeking advice: a sampling approach to advice taking. Judgment Decis. Making 11, 401– 415. doi: 10.1017/S193029750000382X · DOI
  40. Jarrahi M. H. (2018). Artificial intelligence and the future of work: human-AI symbiosis in organizational decision making. Bus. Horizons 61, 577– 586. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2018.03.007 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Joshi M. L. Kanoongo N. (2022). Depression detection using emotional artificial intelligence and machine learning: a closer review. Mat, Today 58, 217– 226. doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2022.01.467 · DOI
  42. Jung D. Dorner V. Weinhardt C. Pusmaz H. (2018). Designing a robo-advisor for risk-averse, low-budget consumers. Electron. Mark. 28, 367– 380. doi: 10.1007/s12525-017-0279-9 · DOI
  43. Jussupow E. Benbasat I. Heinzl A. (2020). Why are we averse towards algorithms? A comprehensive literature review on algorithm aversion. [paper presentation] 28th European Conf. On information systems, virtual event. Conference Paper. Available at: https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2020_rp/168
  44. Kaibel C. Koch-Bayram I. Biemann T. Mühlenbock M. (2019). Applicant perceptions of hiring algorithms—uniqueness and discrimination experiences as moderators. Acad. Manag. Proc. 2019: 18172. doi: 10.5465/AMBPP.2019.210 · DOI
  45. Kämmer J. Choshen-Hillel S. Müller-Trede J. Black S. Weibler J. (2023). A systematic review of empirical studies on advice-based decisions in behavioral and organizational research. Decision 10, 107– 137. doi: 10.1037/dec0000199 · DOI
  46. Kaufmann E. Chacon A. Kausel E. E. Herrera N. Reyes T. (2023). Task-specific algorithm advice acceptance: a review and directions for future research. Data Inform. Manag. 7: 100040. doi: 10.1016/j.dim.2023.100040 · DOI
  47. Kennedy R. P. Waggoner P. D. Ward M. M. (2022). Trust in public policy algorithms. J. Politics 84, 1132– 1148. doi: 10.1086/716283 · DOI
  48. Kliegr T. Bahník Š. Fürnkranz J. (2021). A review of possible effects of cognitive biases on interpretation of rule-based machine learning models. Artif. Intell. 295: 103458. doi: 10.1016/j.artint.2021.103458 · DOI · Paper page
  49. Kneeland C. M. Houpt J. W. Bennett K. B. (2021). Exploring the performance consequences of target prevalence and ecological display designs when using an automated aid. Comput. Brain Behav. 4, 335– 354. doi: 10.1007/s42113-021-00104-3 · DOI
  50. Köchling A. Wehner M. C. (2020). Discriminated by an algorithm: a systematic review of discrimination and fairness by algorithmic decision-making in the context of HR recruitment and HR development. Bus. Res. 13, 795– 848. doi: 10.1007/s40685-020-00134-w · DOI · Paper page
  51. Koestner R. Gingras I. Abutaa R. Losier G. F. DiDio L. Gagné M. (1999). To follow expert advice when making a decision: an examination of reactive versus reflective autonomy. J. Pers. 67, 851– 872. doi: 10.1111/1467-6494.00075 · DOI
  52. Kristof-Brown A. L. Zimmerman R. D. Johnson E. C. (2005). Consequences of individual's fit at work: a meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psych. 58, 281– 342. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x · DOI
  53. Kuhail M. A. Thomas J. Alramlawi S. Shah S. J. H. Thornquist E. (2022). Interacting with a chatbot-based advising system: understanding the effect of chatbot personality and user gender on behavior. Informatics 9: 81. doi: 10.3390/informatics9040081 · DOI · Paper page
  54. Langer M. König C. J. Hemsing V. (2020). Is anybody listening? The impact of automatically evaluated job interviews on impression management and applicant reactions. J. Managerial Psych. 35, 271– 284. doi: 10.1108/jmp-03-2019-0156 · DOI · Paper page
  55. Larkin C. Drummond Otten C. Árvai J. (2022). Paging Dr. JARVIS! Will people accept advice from artificial intelligence for consequential risk management decisions? J. Risk Res. 25, 407– 422. doi: 10.1080/13669877.2021.1958047 · DOI
  56. Lee F. (2002). The social costs of seeking help. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 38, 17– 35. doi: 10.1177/0021886302381002 · DOI
  57. Lehmann C. A. Haubitz C. B. Fügener A. Thonemann U. W. (2022). The risk of algorithm transparency: how algorithm complexity drives the effects on the use of advice. Prod. Oper. Manag. 31, 3419– 3434. doi: 10.1111/poms.13770 · DOI · Paper page
  58. Lepri B. Oliver N. Letouzé E. Pentland A. Vinck P. (2018). Fair, transparent, and accountable algorithmic decision-making processes. Phil. Technol. 31, 611– 627. doi: 10.1007/s13347-017-0279-x · DOI · Paper page
  59. Lewis D. R. (2018). The perils of overconfidence: why many consumers fail to seek advice when they really should. J. Fin. Serv. Market. 23, 104– 111. doi: 10.1057/s41264-018-0048-7 · DOI
  60. Lim J. H. Tai K. Bamberger P. A. Morrison E. W. (2020). Soliciting resources from others: an integrative review. Acad. Manag. Annals. 14, 122– 159. doi: 10.5465/annals.2018.0034 · DOI
  61. Lindblom K. Gregory T. Wilson C. Flight I. H. Zajac I. (2012). The impact of computer self-efficacy, computer anxiety, and perceived usability and acceptability on the efficacy of a decision support tool for colorectal cancer screening. J. Amer. Med. Inform. Assoc. 19, 407– 412. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000225, PMID: 21857024 PMC3341777 · DOI
  62. Logg J. (2017). Theory of machine: when do people rely on algorithms? SSRN Electron. J. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2941774 · DOI
  63. Lourenço C. J. Dellaert B. G. Donkers B. (2020). Whose algorithm says so: the relationships between type of firm, perceptions of trust and expertise, and the acceptance of financial Robo-advice. J. Interact. Market. 49, 107– 124. doi: 10.1016/j.intmar.2019.10.003 · DOI
  64. Lucien R. S.-A. (2021). Design, development, and evaluation of an artificial intelligence-enabled chatbot for honors college student advising in higher education (publication no. 9592) [doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida]. USF Tampa Graduate Theses and Dissertations. Available at: https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/etd/9592
  65. MacGeorge E. L. Feng B. Guntzviller L. M. (2016). Advice: expanding the communication paradigm. Annals of the International Communication Association. 40, 213– 243. doi: 10.1080/23808985.2015.11735261 · DOI
  66. MacGeorge E. L. Van Swol L. M. (2018). The Oxford handbook of advice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  67. Madhavan P. Wiegmann D. A. (2007). Similarities and differences between human–human and human–automation trust: an integrative review. Theoret. Iss. Ergonom. Sci. 8, 277– 301. doi: 10.1080/14639220500337708 · DOI · Paper page
  68. Mahmud H. Islam A. N. Ahmed S. I. Smolander K. (2022). What influences algorithmic decision-making? A systematic literature review on algorithm aversion. Technol. Forecast. Soci. Change. 175: 121390. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121390 · DOI · Paper page
  69. Mayer R. C. Davis J. H. Schoorman F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20, 709– 734. doi: 10.2307/258792 · DOI · Paper page
  70. Mehrabi N. Morstatter F. Saxena N. Lerman K. Galstyan A. (2021). A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning. ACM Comput. Surveys 54, 1– 35. doi: 10.1145/3457607 · DOI · Paper page
  71. Mesbah N. Tauchert C. Buxmann P. (2021). Whose advice counts more–man or machine? An experimental investigation of ai-based advice utilization. Proc. the 54th Hawaii Internat. Conf. System Sci. 8: 496. doi: 10.24251/hicss.2021.496 · DOI
  72. Metzler D. Neuss N. Torno A. (2022). The digitization of investment management–an analysis of robo-advisor business models. Wirtschaftsinformatik 2022 Proc. 2. Available at: https://aisel.aisnet.org/wi2022/finance_and_blockchain/finance_and_blockchain/2
  73. Meuter M. L. Ostrom A. L. Bitner M. J. Roundtree R. (2003). The influence of technology anxiety on consumer use and experiences with self-service technologies. J. Bus. Res. 56, 899– 906. doi: 10.1016/s0148-2963(01)00276-4 · DOI · Paper page
  74. Moussaïd M. Kämmer J. E. Analytics P. P. Neth H. (2013). Social influence and the collective dynamics of opinion formation. PLoS One 8, 1– 8. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0078433, PMID: 24223805 PMC3818331 · DOI · Paper page
  75. Muralidharan L. de Visser E. J. Parasuraman R. (2014). The effects of pitch contour and flanging on trust in speaking cognitive agents. Proc. the extended abstracts of the 32nd annual ACM Conf. On human factors comput. Systems (CHI EA ‘14). 2167– 2172. doi: 10.1145/2559206.2581231 · DOI
  76. Nandwani P. Verma R. (2021). A review on sentiment analysis and emotion detection from text. Soc. Netw. Anal. Min. 11: 81. doi: 10.1007/s13278-021-00776-6, PMID: 34484462 PMC8402961 · DOI · Paper page
  77. Oehler A. Horn M. Wendt S. (2022). Investor characteristics and their impact on the decision to use a robo-advisor. J. Financial Services Res. 62, 91– 125. doi: 10.1007/s10693-021-00367-8 · DOI
  78. Önkal D. Gönül M. S. Goodwin P. Thomson M. Öz E. (2017). Evaluating expert advice in forecasting: users’ reactions to presumed vs. experienced credibility. Internat. J. Forecasting. 33, 280– 297. doi: 10.1016/j.ijforecast.2015.12.009 · DOI
  79. Pak R. Fink N. Price M. Bass B. Sturre L. (2012). Decision support aids with anthropomorphic characteristics influence trust and performance in younger and older adults. Ergonomics. 55, 1059– 1072. doi: 10.1080/00140139.2012.691554, PMID: 22799560 · DOI
  80. Palmeira M. Romero Lopez M. (2023). The opposing impacts of advice use on perceptions of competence. J. Behav. Decision Making. 36: e2318. doi: 10.1002/bdm.2318 · DOI
  81. Pena A. Serna I. Morales A. Fierrez J. (2020). Bias in multimodal AI: testbed for fair automatic recruitment. In Proc. the IEEE/CVF Conf. On computer vision and pattern recognition workshops. 28– 29. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2004.07173 · DOI
  82. Peters E. Västfjäll D. Slovic P. Mertz C. K. Mazzocco K. Dickert S. (2006). Numeracy and decision making. Psych. Sci. 17, 407– 413. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01720.x 16683928 · DOI · Paper page
  83. Pezzo M. V. Nash B. E. D. Vieux P. Foster-Grammer H. W. (2022). Effect of having, but not consulting, a computerized diagnostic aid. Med. Decis. Mak. 42, 94– 104. doi: 10.1177/0272989X211011160, PMID: 33966519 · DOI
  84. Phan P. Wright M. Lee S. H. (2017). Of robots, artificial intelligence, and work. Acad. Management Perspectives. 31, 253– 255. doi: 10.5465/amp.2017.0199 · DOI
  85. Phillips-Wren G. (2012). AI tools in decision making support systems: a review. Internat. J. Artificial Intelligence Tools. 21: 1240005. doi: 10.1142/s0218213012400052 · DOI
  86. Pickard M. D. Roster C. A. Chen Y. (2016). Revealing sensitive information in personal interviews: is self-disclosure easier with humans or avatars and under what conditions? Computers in Human Behav. 65, 23– 30. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.004 · DOI
  87. Porath C. L. Gerbasi A. Schorch S. L. (2015). The effects of civility on advice, leadership, and performance. J. Appl. Psych. 100, 1527– 1541. doi: 10.1037/apl0000016, PMID: 25798552 · DOI
  88. Rader C. A. Larrick R. P. Soll J. B. (2017). Advice as a form of social influence: informational motives and the consequences for accuracy. Social Personality Psych. Compass. 11, 1– 17. doi: 10.1111/spc3.12329 · DOI
  89. Reich T. Kaju A. Maglio S. J. (2022). How to overcome algorithm aversion: learning from mistakes. J. Consumer Psych. 33, 285– 302. doi: 10.1002/jcpy.1313 · DOI
  90. Rempel J. K. Holmes J. G. Zanna M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. J. Personality Social Psych. 49, 95– 112. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.95 · DOI · Paper page
  91. Rossi A. G. Utkus S. P. (2020). The needs and wants in financial advice: human versus robo-advising. SSRN 3759041. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3759041 · DOI
  92. Rudin C. (2019). Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nature Mach Intell. 1, 206– 215. doi: 10.1038/s42256-019-0048-x, PMID: 35603010 PMC9122117 · DOI · Paper page
  93. Saragih M. Morrison B. W. (2022). The effect of past algorithmic performance and decision significance on algorithmic advice acceptance. Internat. J. Human-Computer Interaction. 38, 1228– 1237. doi: 10.1080/10447318.2021.1990518 · DOI
  94. Schneider S. Freisinger E. (2022). Overcoming algorithm aversion: the power of task-procedure-fit. Acad. Management Proc. 2022: 15716. doi: 10.5465/AMBPP.2022.122 · DOI
  95. Schrah G. E. Dalal R. S. Sniezek J. A. (2006). No decision-maker is an island: integrating expert advice with information acquisition. J. Behav. Decision Making. 19, 43– 60. doi: 10.1002/bdm.514 · DOI
  96. Schreuter D. van der Putten P. Lamers M. H. (2021). Trust me on this one: conforming to conversational assistants. Minds Machines. 31, 535– 562. doi: 10.1007/s11023-021-09581-8 · DOI
  97. Schultze T. Rakotoarisoa A.-F. Stefan S.-H. (2015). Effects of distance between initial estimates and advice on advice utilization. Judgment Decision Making. 10, 144– 171. doi: 10.1017/s1930297500003922 · DOI
  98. Sniezek J. A. Buckley T. (1995). Cueing and cognitive conflict in judge-advisor decision making. Organ. Behav. Human Decis. Processes. 62, 159– 174. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1995.1040 · DOI
  99. Sniezek J. A. Van Swol L. M. (2001). Trust, confidence, and expertise in a judge-advisor system. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes. 84, 288– 307. doi: 10.1006/obhd.2000.2926 11277673 · DOI · Paper page
  100. Sowa K. Przegalinska A. Ciechanowski L. (2021). Cobots in knowledge work: human–AI collaboration in managerial professions. J. Bus. Res. 125, 135– 142. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.11.038 · DOI
  101. Tett R. P. Murphy P. J. (2002). Personality and situations in co-worker preference: similarity and complementarity in worker compatibility. J. Bus. Psych. 17, 223– 243. doi: 10.1023/A:1019685515745 · DOI
  102. Trunk A. Birkel H. Hartmann E. (2020). On the current state of combining human and artificial intelligence for strategic organizational decision making. Bus. Res. 13, 875– 919. doi: 10.1007/s40685-020-00133-x · DOI
  103. Turabzadeh S. Meng H. Swash R. Pleva M. Juhar J. (2018). Facial expression emotion detection for real-time embedded systems. Technologies 6: 17. doi: 10.3390/technologies6010017 · DOI
  104. Van Swol L. M. Ludutsky C. L. (2007). Tell me something I don't know: decision makers' preference for advisors with unshared information. Comm. Res. 34, 297– 312. doi: 10.1177/0093650207300430 · DOI
  105. Van Swol L. M. Prahl A. MacGeorge E. Branch S. (2019). Imposing advice on powerful people. Comm. Reports. 32, 173– 187. doi: 10.1080/08934215.2019.1655082 · DOI
  106. Verberne F. M. F. Ham J. Midden C. J. H. (2015). Trusting a virtual driver that looks, acts, and thinks like you. Hum. Factors 57, 895– 909. doi: 10.1177/0018720815580749, PMID: 25921302 · DOI · Paper page
  107. Vodrahalli K. Daneshjou R. Gerstenberg T. Zou J. (2022). Do humans trust advice more if it comes from ai? An analysis of human-ai interactions. Proc. 2022 AAAI/ACM Conf. AI, Ethics Soc., 763– 777. doi: 10.1145/3514094.3534150 · DOI · Paper page
  108. Völkel S. T. Kaya L. (2021). Examining user preference for agreeableness in chatbots. Proc. 3rd Conf. Conver. User Interfaces. Association for Computing Machinery. 38, 1– 6. doi: 10.1145/3469595.3469633 · DOI · Paper page
  109. Wilder B. Horvitz E. Kamar E. (2020). Learning to complement humans. Proceedings of the twenty-ninth international joint conference on artificial intelligence, IJCAI-20. ed. Bessiere C. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization. 1526– 1533. doi: 10.24963/ijcai.2020/212 · DOI · Paper page
  110. Willford J. C. (2021). The effect of algorithm transparency on algorithm utilization. (publication no. 28413768) [doctoral dissertation, the George Washington University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. Available at: https://www.proquest.com/docview/2533362101?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true
  111. Wise M. A. (2000). Individual operator compliance with a decision-support system. Proc. Human Factors Ergonom. Soc. Annual Meet. 44, 350– 353. doi: 10.1177/154193120004400215 · DOI
  112. Yaniv I. Choshen-Hillel S. Milyavsky M. (2011). Receiving advice on matters of taste: similarity, majority influence, and taste discrimination. Organ. Behav. Human Decis. Process. 115, 111– 120. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.11.006 · DOI
  113. Yoon H. Scopelliti I. Morewedge C. K. (2021). Decision making can be improved through observational learning. Organ. Behav. Human Decis. Process. 162, 155– 188. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.10.011 · DOI
  114. You S. Yang C. L. Li X. (2022). Algorithmic versus human advice: does presenting prediction performance matter for algorithm appreciation? J. Manag. Inform. Systems. 39, 336– 365. doi: 10.1080/07421222.2022.2063553 · DOI
  115. Yun Y. Ma D. Yang M. (2021). Human–computer interaction-based decision support system with applications in data mining. Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst. 114, 285– 289. doi: 10.1016/j.future.2020.07.048 · DOI
  116. Zhang G. Chong L. Kotovsky K. Cagan J. (2023). Trust in an AI versus a human teammate: the effects of teammate identity and performance on human-AI cooperation. Comp. Human Behav. 139: 107536. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107536 · DOI
  117. Zhang Q. Lee M. L. Carter S. (2022). You complete me: human-AI teams and complementary expertise. CHI Conf. Human Factors Comput. Systems. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. 1– 28. doi: 10.1145/3491102.3517791 · DOI · Paper page
  118. Zhu Z. Tomassetti A. J. Dalal R. S. Schrader S. W. Loo K. Sabat I. E.. (2022). A test-retest reliability generalization meta-analysis of judgments via the policy-capturing technique. Organ. Res. Methods. 25, 541– 574. doi: 10.1177/10944281211011529 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Baines, J. I., Dalal, R. S., Ponce, L. P., & Tsai, H.-C.
Affiliations
  • George Mason University (US)
  • Illinois Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Baines, Julia I.
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2024-10-08
Volume
15
Pages
1390182-1390182
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1390182
PMC
PMC11493662
OpenAlex
W4403237488
Cited by
28
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 6
FWCI
2.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
Keywords
human-AI interaction, judgment and decision making, AI adoption in organizations

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review