IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_10188.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Similarity and Consistency in Algorithm-Guided Exploration

Author

Listed:
  • Yongping Bao
  • Ludwig Danwitz
  • Fabian Dvorak
  • Sebastian Fehrler
  • Lars Hornuf
  • Hsuan Yu Lin
  • Bettina von Helversen

Abstract

Algorithm-based decision support systems play an increasingly important role in decisions involving exploration tasks, such as product searches, portfolio choices, and human resource procurement. These tasks often involve a trade-off between exploration and exploitation, which can be highly dependent on individual preferences. In an online experiment, we study whether the willingness of participants to follow the advice of a reinforcement learning algorithm depends on the fit between their own exploration preferences and the algorithm’s advice. We vary the weight that the algorithm places on exploration rather than exploitation, and model the participants’ decision-making processes using a learning model comparable to the algorithm’s. This allows us to measure the degree to which one’s willingness to accept the algorithm’s advice depends on the weight it places on exploration and on the similarity between the exploration tendencies of the algorithm and the participant. We find that the algorithm’s advice affects and improves participants’ choices in all treatments. However, the degree to which participants are willing to follow the advice depends heavily on the algorithm’s exploration tendency. Participants are more likely to follow an algorithm that is more exploitative than they are, possibly interpreting the algorithm’s relative consistency over time as a signal of expertise. Similarity between human choices and the algorithm’s recommendations does not increase humans’ willingness to follow the recommendations. Hence, our results suggest that the consistency of an algorithm’s recommendations over time is key to inducing people to follow algorithmic advice in exploration tasks.

Suggested Citation

  • Yongping Bao & Ludwig Danwitz & Fabian Dvorak & Sebastian Fehrler & Lars Hornuf & Hsuan Yu Lin & Bettina von Helversen, 2022. "Similarity and Consistency in Algorithm-Guided Exploration," CESifo Working Paper Series 10188, CESifo.
  • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_10188
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cesifo.org/DocDL/cesifo1_wp10188.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kohei Kawaguchi, 2021. "When Will Workers Follow an Algorithm? A Field Experiment with a Retail Business," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 1670-1695, March.
    2. Carpenter, Bob & Gelman, Andrew & Hoffman, Matthew D. & Lee, Daniel & Goodrich, Ben & Betancourt, Michael & Brubaker, Marcus & Guo, Jiqiang & Li, Peter & Riddell, Allen, 2017. "Stan: A Probabilistic Programming Language," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 76(i01).
    3. Muhammad Zubair Tauni & Zulfiqar Ali Memon & Hong-Xing Fang & Khalil Jebran & Tanveer Ahsan, 2019. "Influence of Investor and Advisor Big Five Personality Congruence on Futures Trading Behavior," Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(15), pages 3615-3630, December.
    4. Gino, Francesca & Shang, Jen & Croson, Rachel, 2009. "The impact of information from similar or different advisors on judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 287-302, March.
    5. Nathaniel D. Daw & John P. O'Doherty & Peter Dayan & Ben Seymour & Raymond J. Dolan, 2006. "Cortical substrates for exploratory decisions in humans," Nature, Nature, vol. 441(7095), pages 876-879, June.
    6. Yaniv, Ilan & Kleinberger, Eli, 2000. "Advice Taking in Decision Making: Egocentric Discounting and Reputation Formation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 260-281, November.
    7. Sebastian Fehrler & Niall Hughes, 2018. "How Transparency Kills Information Aggregation: Theory and Experiment," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 10(1), pages 181-209, February.
    8. Daniella Laureiro‐Martinez & Stefano Brusoni & Amulya Tata & Maurizio Zollo, 2019. "The Manager’s Notepad: Working Memory, Exploration, and Performance," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(8), pages 1655-1682, December.
    9. Logg, Jennifer M. & Minson, Julia A. & Moore, Don A., 2019. "Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 90-103.
    10. Andrew Prahl & Lyn Van Swol, 2017. "Understanding algorithm aversion: When is advice from automation discounted?," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(6), pages 691-702, September.
    11. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:2:p:144-171 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Mahmud, Hasan & Islam, A.K.M. Najmul & Ahmed, Syed Ishtiaque & Smolander, Kari, 2022. "What influences algorithmic decision-making? A systematic literature review on algorithm aversion," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    13. Kartik K. Ganju & Hilal Atasoy & Jeffery McCullough & Brad Greenwood, 2020. "The Role of Decision Support Systems in Attenuating Racial Biases in Healthcare Delivery," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(11), pages 5171-5181, November.
    14. Muhammad Zubair Tauni & Zulfiqar Ali Memon & Hong-Xing Fang & Khalil Jebran & Tanveer Ahsan, 2019. "Influence of Investor and Advisor Big Five Personality Congruence on Futures Trading Behavior," Post-Print hal-02463194, HAL.
    15. Gerrit H. van Bruggen & Ale Smidts & Berend Wierenga, 1998. "Improving Decision Making by Means of a Marketing Decision Support System," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(5), pages 645-658, May.
    16. Philipp Ecken & Richard Pibernik, 2016. "Hit or Miss: What Leads Experts to Take Advice for Long-Term Judgments?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(7), pages 2002-2021, July.
    17. Armin Falk & Florian Zimmermann, 2017. "Consistency as a Signal of Skills," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(7), pages 2197-2210, July.
    18. Juha Uotila & Markku Maula & Thomas Keil & Shaker A. Zahra, 2009. "Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance: analysis of S&P 500 corporations," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 221-231, February.
    19. Filiz, Ibrahim & Judek, Jan René & Lorenz, Marco & Spiwoks, Markus, 2021. "Reducing algorithm aversion through experience," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 31(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alexia GAUDEUL & Caterina GIANNETTI, 2023. "Trade-offs in the design of financial algorithms," Discussion Papers 2023/288, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    2. Zulia Gubaydullina & Jan René Judek & Marco Lorenz & Markus Spiwoks, 2022. "Comparing Different Kinds of Influence on an Algorithm in Its Forecasting Process and Their Impact on Algorithm Aversion," Businesses, MDPI, vol. 2(4), pages 1-23, October.
    3. Mahmud, Hasan & Islam, A.K.M. Najmul & Mitra, Ranjan Kumar, 2023. "What drives managers towards algorithm aversion and how to overcome it? Mitigating the impact of innovation resistance through technology readiness," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    4. Mahmud, Hasan & Islam, A.K.M. Najmul & Ahmed, Syed Ishtiaque & Smolander, Kari, 2022. "What influences algorithmic decision-making? A systematic literature review on algorithm aversion," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    5. Merle, Aurélie & St-Onge, Anik & Sénécal, Sylvain, 2022. "Does it pay to be honest? The effect of retailer-provided negative feedback on consumers’ product choice and shopping experience," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 532-543.
    6. Chugunova, Marina & Sele, Daniela, 2022. "We and It: An interdisciplinary review of the experimental evidence on how humans interact with machines," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    7. Markus Jung & Mischa Seiter, 2021. "Towards a better understanding on mitigating algorithm aversion in forecasting: an experimental study," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 495-516, December.
    8. Logg, Jennifer M. & Minson, Julia A. & Moore, Don A., 2019. "Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 90-103.
    9. Shiri Melumad & Rhonda Hadi & Christian Hildebrand & Adrian F. Ward, 2020. "Technology-Augmented Choice: How Digital Innovations Are Transforming Consumer Decision Processes," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 7(3), pages 90-101, October.
    10. Johannes Müller-Trede & Shoham Choshen-Hillel & Meir Barneron & Ilan Yaniv, 2018. "The Wisdom of Crowds in Matters of Taste," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(4), pages 1779-1803, April.
    11. Kausel, Edgar E. & Culbertson, Satoris S. & Leiva, Pedro I. & Slaughter, Jerel E. & Jackson, Alexander T., 2015. "Too arrogant for their own good? Why and when narcissists dismiss advice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 33-50.
    12. Manav Raj & Justin Berg & Rob Seamans, 2023. "Art-ificial Intelligence: The Effect of AI Disclosure on Evaluations of Creative Content," Papers 2303.06217, arXiv.org.
    13. Ali, Fayaz & Tauni, Muhammad Zubair & Ali, Ayaz, 2022. "The Big Five dyad congruence and compulsive buying: A case of service encounters," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    14. Artem Stopochkin & Inessa Sytnik & Janusz Wielki & Nataliia Zemlianska, 2021. "Methodology for Building Trader's Investment Strategy Based on Assessment of the Market Value of the Company," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(1), pages 913-935.
    15. Thomas Schultze & Anne-Fernandine Rakotoarisoa & Stefan Schulz-Hardt, 2015. "Effects of distance between initial estimates and advice on advice utilization," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(2), pages 144-171, March.
    16. Mesbah, Neda & Tauchert, Christoph & Buxmann, Peter, 2021. "Whose Advice Counts More – Man or Machine? An Experimental Investigation of AI-based Advice Utilization," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 124796, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    17. Sarah Spiekermann & Hanna Krasnova & Oliver Hinz & Annika Baumann & Alexander Benlian & Henner Gimpel & Irina Heimbach & Antonia Köster & Alexander Maedche & Björn Niehaves & Marten Risius & Manuel Tr, 2022. "Values and Ethics in Information Systems," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 64(2), pages 247-264, April.
    18. Michelle Rogan & Marie Louise Mors, 2014. "A Network Perspective on Individual-Level Ambidexterity in Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 1860-1877, December.
    19. Mathieu Chevrier & Brice Corgnet & Eric Guerci & Julie Rosaz, 2024. "Algorithm Credulity: Human and Algorithmic Advice in Prediction Experiments," GREDEG Working Papers 2024-03, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    20. Ivanova-Stenzel, Radosveta & Tolksdorf, Michel, 2023. "Measuring Preferences for Algorithms - Are people really algorithm averse after seeing the algorithm perform?," VfS Annual Conference 2023 (Regensburg): Growth and the "sociale Frage" 277692, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    algorithms; decision support systems; recommender systems; advice-taking; multi-armed bandit; search; exploration-exploitation; cognitive modeling;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_10188. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Klaus Wohlrabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.