IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2405.04972.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Overcoming Anchoring Bias: The Potential of AI and XAI-based Decision Support

Author

Listed:
  • Felix Haag
  • Carlo Stingl
  • Katrin Zerfass
  • Konstantin Hopf
  • Thorsten Staake

Abstract

Information systems (IS) are frequently designed to leverage the negative effect of anchoring bias to influence individuals' decision-making (e.g., by manipulating purchase decisions). Recent advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the explanations of its decisions through explainable AI (XAI) have opened new opportunities for mitigating biased decisions. So far, the potential of these technological advances to overcome anchoring bias remains widely unclear. To this end, we conducted two online experiments with a total of N=390 participants in the context of purchase decisions to examine the impact of AI and XAI-based decision support on anchoring bias. Our results show that AI alone and its combination with XAI help to mitigate the negative effect of anchoring bias. Ultimately, our findings have implications for the design of AI and XAI-based decision support and IS to overcome cognitive biases.

Suggested Citation

  • Felix Haag & Carlo Stingl & Katrin Zerfass & Konstantin Hopf & Thorsten Staake, 2024. "Overcoming Anchoring Bias: The Potential of AI and XAI-based Decision Support," Papers 2405.04972, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2405.04972
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2405.04972
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chapman, Gretchen B. & Johnson, Eric J., 1999. "Anchoring, Activation, and the Construction of Values, , , , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 115-153, August.
    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. Daniel Fonseca Costa & Francisval Carvalho & Bruno César Moreira & José Willer Prado, 2017. "Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1775-1799, June.
    2. Dan Ariely & Kristina Shampan'er, 2006. "How small is zero price? : the true value of free products," Working Papers 06-16, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
    3. Jing-Yi Chen & Ming-Hui Wang, 2023. "A Study on Real Estate Purchase Decisions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-21, March.
    4. Fischer, Greg & Karlan, Dean & McConnell, Margaret & Raffler, Pia, 2019. "Short-term subsidies and seller type: A health products experiment in Uganda," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 110-124.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:1:p:41-50 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Drew Fudenberg & David K. Levine & Zacharias Maniadis, 2012. "On the Robustness of Anchoring Effects in WTP and WTA Experiments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(2), pages 131-145, May.
    7. He, Haoran & Wu, Keyu, 2016. "Choice set, relative income, and inequity aversion: An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 177-193.
    8. Johannes Abeler & Armin Falk & Lorenz Goette & David Huffman, 2011. "Reference Points and Effort Provision," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 470-492, April.
    9. Meub, Lukas & Proeger, Till E., 2015. "Anchoring in social context," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 29-39.
    10. Noel T. Brewer & Sarah E. Lillie & William K. Hallman, 2006. "Why People Believe They Were Exposed to Biological or Chemical Warfare: A Survey of Gulf War Veterans," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 337-345, April.
    11. Mussweiler, Thomas & Englich, Birte, 2005. "Subliminal anchoring: Judgmental consequences and underlying mechanisms," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 98(2), pages 133-143, November.
    12. repec:cup:judgdm:v:2:y:2007:i::p:48-53 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Lukas Meub & Till Proeger, 2018. "Are groups ‘less behavioral’? The case of anchoring," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 85(2), pages 117-150, August.
    14. Konstantinos Ioannidis & Theo Offerman & Randolph Sloof, 2020. "On the effect of anchoring on valuations when the anchor is transparently uninformative," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 6(1), pages 77-94, June.
    15. Kevin Bauer & Andrej Gill, 2024. "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: Algorithmic Assessments, Transparency, and Self-Fulfilling Prophecies," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 35(1), pages 226-248, March.
    16. Andrzej Kozina, 2017. "Negotiation Competences of an Entrepreneur," Problemy Zarzadzania, University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management, vol. 15(65), pages 209-225.
    17. Hoeffler, Steve & Ariely, Dan & West, Pat, 2006. "Path dependent preferences: The role of early experience and biased search in preference development," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 215-229, November.
    18. Meub, Lukas & Proeger, Till & Bizer, Kilian, 2013. "Anchoring: A valid explanation for biased forecasts when rational predictions are easily accessible and well incentivized?," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 166, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    19. Luchini, Stéphane & Watson, Verity, 2013. "Uncertainty and framing in a valuation task," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 204-214.
    20. Qian Wang & Michael Chau & Chih-Hung Peng & Eric W. T. Ngai, 2022. "Using the Anchoring Effect and the Cultural Dimensions Theory to Study Customers’ Online Rating Behaviors," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 24(5), pages 1451-1463, October.
    21. Štěpán Bahník, 2021. "Anchoring without scale distortion," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(1), pages 131-141, January.
    22. Sangsuk Yoon & Nathan M. Fong & Angelika Dimoka, 2019. "The robustness of anchoring effects on preferential judgments," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(4), pages 470-487, July.

    More about this item

    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:arx:papers:2405.04972. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.