Acceptance of AI in Semi-Structured Decision-Making Situations Applying the Four-Sides Model of Communication—An Empirical Analysis Focused on Higher Education

Abstract

This study investigates the impact of generative AI systems like ChatGPT on semi-structured decision-making, specifically in evaluating undergraduate dissertations. We propose using Davis’ technology acceptance model (TAM) and Schulz von Thun’s four-sides communication model to understand human–AI interaction and necessary adaptations for acceptance in dissertation grading. Utilizing an inductive research design, we conducted ten interviews with respondents having varying levels of AI and management expertise, employing four escalating-consequence scenarios mirroring higher education dissertation grading. In all scenarios, the AI functioned as a sender, based on the four-sides model. Findings reveal that technology acceptance for human–AI interaction is adaptive but requires modifications, particularly regarding AI’s transparency. Testing the four-sides model showed support for three sides, with the appeal side receiving negative feedback for AI acceptance as a sender. Respondents struggled to accept the idea of AI, suggesting a grading decision through an appeal. Consequently, transparency about AI’s role emerged as vital. When AI supports instructors transparently, acceptance levels are higher. These results encourage further research on AI as a receiver and the impartiality of AI decision-making without instructor influence. This study emphasizes communication modes in learning-ecosystems, especially in semi-structured decision-making situations with AI as a sender, while highlighting the potential to enhance AI-based decision-making acceptance.