IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ajk/ajkdps/078.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Risk of Algorithm Transparency: How Algorithm Complexity Drives the Effects on Use of Advice

Author

Listed:
  • Christiane B. Haubitz

    (Department of Supply Chain Management and Management Science, University of Cologne, 50923 Cologne, Germany)

  • Cedric A. Lehmann

    (Department of Supply Chain Management and Management Science, University of Cologne, 50923 Cologne, Germany)

  • Andreas Fügener

    (Department of Supply Chain Management and Management Science, University of Cologne, 50923 Cologne, Germany)

  • Ulrich W. Thonemann

    (Department of Supply Chain Management and Management Science, University of Cologne, 50923 Cologne, Germany)

Abstract

Algorithmic decision support is omnipresent in many managerial tasks, but human judgment often makes the final call. A lack of algorithm transparency is often stated as a barrier to successful human-machine collaboration. In this paper, we analyze the effects of algorithm transparency on the use of advice from algorithms with different degrees of complexity. We conduct a preregistered laboratory experiment where participants receive identical advice from algorithms with different levels of transparency and complexity. The results of the experiment show that increasing the transparency of a simple algorithm reduces the use of advice, while increasing the transparency of a complex algorithm increases it. Our results also indicate that the individually perceived appropriateness of algorithmic complexity moderates the effects of transparency on the use of advice. While perceiving an algorithm as too simple severely harms the use of its advice, the perception of an algorithm being too complex has no significant effect on it. Our results suggest that managers do not have to be concerned about revealing complex algorithms to decision makers, even if the decision makers do not fully comprehend them. However, making simple algorithms transparent bears the risk of disappointing people’s expectations, which can reduce the use of algorithms' advice.

Suggested Citation

  • Christiane B. Haubitz & Cedric A. Lehmann & Andreas Fügener & Ulrich W. Thonemann, 2021. "The Risk of Algorithm Transparency: How Algorithm Complexity Drives the Effects on Use of Advice," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 078, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:ajk:ajkdps:078
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econtribute.de/RePEc/ajk/ajkdps/ECONtribute_078_2021.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2021
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mirko Kremer & Brent Moritz & Enno Siemsen, 2011. "Demand Forecasting Behavior: System Neglect and Change Detection," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(10), pages 1827-1843, October.
    2. P H Franses & R Legerstee, 2011. "Experts' adjustment to model-based SKU-level forecasts: does the forecast horizon matter?," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(3), pages 537-543, March.
    3. Klassen, Robert D. & Flores, Benito E., 2001. "Forecasting practices of Canadian firms: Survey results and comparisons," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 163-174, March.
    4. Brent Moritz & Enno Siemsen & Mirko Kremer, 2014. "Judgmental Forecasting: Cognitive Reflection and Decision Speed," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 23(7), pages 1146-1160, July.
    5. Fischer, Ilan & Harvey, Nigel, 1999. "Combining forecasts: What information do judges need to outperform the simple average?," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 15(3), pages 227-246, July.
    6. Harvey, Nigel & Bolger, Fergus, 1996. "Graphs versus tables: Effects of data presentation format on judgemental forecasting," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 119-137, March.
    7. Perera, H. Niles & Hurley, Jason & Fahimnia, Behnam & Reisi, Mohsen, 2019. "The human factor in supply chain forecasting: A systematic review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(2), pages 574-600.
    8. Sanders, Nada R. & Manrodt, Karl B., 2003. "The efficacy of using judgmental versus quantitative forecasting methods in practice," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 511-522, December.
    9. Gino, Francesca, 2008. "Do we listen to advice just because we paid for it? The impact of advice cost on its use," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 234-245, November.
    10. George B. Dantzig, 1957. "Discrete-Variable Extremum Problems," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 5(2), pages 266-288, April.
    11. Webby, Richard & O'Connor, Marcus, 1996. "Judgemental and statistical time series forecasting: a review of the literature," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 91-118, March.
    12. Harvey, Nigel & Fischer, Ilan, 1997. "Taking Advice: Accepting Help, Improving Judgment, and Sharing Responsibility," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 117-133, May.
    13. 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.
    14. Arvan, Meysam & Fahimnia, Behnam & Reisi, Mohsen & Siemsen, Enno, 2019. "Integrating human judgement into quantitative forecasting methods: A review," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 237-252.
    15. Goodwin, Paul & Sinan Gönül, M. & Önkal, Dilek, 2013. "Antecedents and effects of trust in forecasting advice," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 354-366.
    16. Lawrence, Michael & Goodwin, Paul & O'Connor, Marcus & Onkal, Dilek, 2006. "Judgmental forecasting: A review of progress over the last 25 years," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 493-518.
    17. Fildes, Robert & Goodwin, Paul & Önkal, Dilek, 2019. "Use and misuse of information in supply chain forecasting of promotion effects," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 144-156.
    18. De Baets, Shari & Harvey, Nigel, 2020. "Using judgment to select and adjust forecasts from statistical models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 284(3), pages 882-895.
    19. Jasbir S. Dhaliwal & Izak Benbasat, 1996. "The Use and Effects of Knowledge-Based System Explanations: Theoretical Foundations and a Framework for Empirical Evaluation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 342-362, September.
    20. Robert Fildes & Fotios Petropoulos, 2015. "Improving Forecast Quality in Practice," Foresight: The International Journal of Applied Forecasting, International Institute of Forecasters, issue 36, pages 5-12, Winter.
    21. Berkeley J. Dietvorst & Joseph P. Simmons & Cade Massey, 2018. "Overcoming Algorithm Aversion: People Will Use Imperfect Algorithms If They Can (Even Slightly) Modify Them," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(3), pages 1155-1170, March.
    22. Fildes, Robert, 2006. "The forecasting journals and their contribution to forecasting research: Citation analysis and expert opinion," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 415-432.
    23. Alvarado-Valencia, Jorge & Barrero, Lope H. & Önkal, Dilek & Dennerlein, Jack T., 2017. "Expertise, credibility of system forecasts and integration methods in judgmental demand forecasting," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 298-313.
    24. Fildes, Robert & Goodwin, Paul & Lawrence, Michael & Nikolopoulos, Konstantinos, 2009. "Effective forecasting and judgmental adjustments: an empirical evaluation and strategies for improvement in supply-chain planning," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 3-23.
    25. Robert Fildes & Paul Goodwin, 2007. "Against Your Better Judgment? How Organizations Can Improve Their Use of Management Judgment in Forecasting," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 37(6), pages 570-576, December.
    26. Bonaccio, Silvia & Dalal, Reeshad S., 2006. "Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 127-151, November.
    27. Chen, Daniel L. & Schonger, Martin & Wickens, Chris, 2016. "oTree—An open-source platform for laboratory, online, and field experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 88-97.
    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. Cedric A. Lehmann & Christiane B. Haubitz & Andreas Fügener & Ulrich W. Thonemann, 2022. "The risk of algorithm transparency: How algorithm complexity drives the effects on the use of advice," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(9), pages 3419-3434, September.
    2. Petropoulos, Fotios & Apiletti, Daniele & Assimakopoulos, Vassilios & Babai, Mohamed Zied & Barrow, Devon K. & Ben Taieb, Souhaib & Bergmeir, Christoph & Bessa, Ricardo J. & Bijak, Jakub & Boylan, Joh, 2022. "Forecasting: theory and practice," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 705-871.
      • Fotios Petropoulos & Daniele Apiletti & Vassilios Assimakopoulos & Mohamed Zied Babai & Devon K. Barrow & Souhaib Ben Taieb & Christoph Bergmeir & Ricardo J. Bessa & Jakub Bijak & John E. Boylan & Jet, 2020. "Forecasting: theory and practice," Papers 2012.03854, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2022.
    3. Perera, H. Niles & Hurley, Jason & Fahimnia, Behnam & Reisi, Mohsen, 2019. "The human factor in supply chain forecasting: A systematic review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(2), pages 574-600.
    4. Arvan, Meysam & Fahimnia, Behnam & Reisi, Mohsen & Siemsen, Enno, 2019. "Integrating human judgement into quantitative forecasting methods: A review," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 237-252.
    5. Khosrowabadi, Naghmeh & Hoberg, Kai & Imdahl, Christina, 2022. "Evaluating human behaviour in response to AI recommendations for judgemental forecasting," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 303(3), pages 1151-1167.
    6. Hewage, Harsha Chamara & Perera, H. Niles & De Baets, Shari, 2022. "Forecast adjustments during post-promotional periods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 300(2), pages 461-472.
    7. De Baets, Shari & Harvey, Nigel, 2020. "Using judgment to select and adjust forecasts from statistical models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 284(3), pages 882-895.
    8. Sroginis, Anna & Fildes, Robert & Kourentzes, Nikolaos, 2023. "Use of contextual and model-based information in adjusting promotional forecasts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(3), pages 1177-1191.
    9. Leitner, Johannes & Leopold-Wildburger, Ulrike, 2011. "Experiments on forecasting behavior with several sources of information - A review of the literature," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 213(3), pages 459-469, September.
    10. Abolghasemi, Mahdi & Hurley, Jason & Eshragh, Ali & Fahimnia, Behnam, 2020. "Demand forecasting in the presence of systematic events: Cases in capturing sales promotions," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 230(C).
    11. Fildes, Robert & Goodwin, Paul, 2021. "Stability in the inefficient use of forecasting systems: A case study in a supply chain company," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 1031-1046.
    12. Van den Broeke, Maud & De Baets, Shari & Vereecke, Ann & Baecke, Philippe & Vanderheyden, Karlien, 2019. "Judgmental forecast adjustments over different time horizons," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 34-45.
    13. Petropoulos, Fotios & Fildes, Robert & Goodwin, Paul, 2016. "Do ‘big losses’ in judgmental adjustments to statistical forecasts affect experts’ behaviour?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 842-852.
    14. Alvarado-Valencia, Jorge & Barrero, Lope H. & Önkal, Dilek & Dennerlein, Jack T., 2017. "Expertise, credibility of system forecasts and integration methods in judgmental demand forecasting," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 298-313.
    15. Katsagounos, Ilias & Thomakos, Dimitrios D. & Litsiou, Konstantia & Nikolopoulos, Konstantinos, 2021. "Superforecasting reality check: Evidence from a small pool of experts and expedited identification," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 289(1), pages 107-117.
    16. Eksoz, Can & Mansouri, S. Afshin & Bourlakis, Michael & Önkal, Dilek, 2019. "Judgmental adjustments through supply integration for strategic partnerships in food chains," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 20-33.
    17. Eksoz, Can & Mansouri, S. Afshin & Bourlakis, Michael, 2014. "Collaborative forecasting in the food supply chain: A conceptual framework," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 120-135.
    18. Baecke, Philippe & De Baets, Shari & Vanderheyden, Karlien, 2017. "Investigating the added value of integrating human judgement into statistical demand forecasting systems," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 85-96.
    19. Fildes, Robert & Goodwin, Paul & Onkal, Dilek, 2015. "Information use in supply chain forecasting," MPRA Paper 66034, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. 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).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Algorithm Transparency; Decision Making; Decision Support; Use of Advice;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior

    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:ajk:ajkdps:078. 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: ECONtribute Office (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.econtribute.de .

    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.