Search

Abstract Despite the rise of decision support systems enabled by artificial intelligence (AI) in personnel selection, their impact on decision-making processes is largely unknown. Consequently, we conducted five experiments (N = 1403 students and Human Resource Management (HRM) employees) investigating how people interact with AI-generated advice in a personnel selection task. In all pre-registered experiments, we presented correct and incorrect advice. In Experiments 1a and 1b, we manipulated the source of the advice (human vs. AI). In Experiments 2a, 2b, and 2c, we further manipulated the type of explainability of AI advice (2a and 2b: heatmaps and 2c: charts). We hypothesized that accurate and explainable advice improves decision-making. The independent variables were regressed on task performance, perceived advice quality and confidence ratings. The results consistently showed that incorrect advice negatively impacted performance, as people failed to dismiss it (i.e., overreliance). Additionally, we found that the effects of source and explainability of advice on the dependent variables were limited. The lack of reduction in participants’ overreliance on inaccurate advice when the systems’ predictions were made more explainable highlights the complexity of human-AI interaction and the need for regulation and quality standards in HRM.

Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI)-generated clinical advice is becoming more prevalent in healthcare. However, the impact of AI-generated advice on physicians’ decision-making is underexplored. In this study, physicians received X-rays with correct diagnostic advice and were asked to make a diagnosis, rate the advice’s quality, and judge their own confidence. We manipulated whether the advice came with or without a visual annotation on the X-rays, and whether it was labeled as coming from an AI or a human radiologist. Overall, receiving annotated advice from an AI resulted in the highest diagnostic accuracy. Physicians rated the quality of AI advice higher than human advice. We did not find a strong effect of either manipulation on participants’ confidence. The magnitude of the effects varied between task experts and non-task experts, with the latter benefiting considerably from correct explainable AI advice. These findings raise important considerations for the deployment of diagnostic advice in healthcare.