Journal of Intelligence and Information Systems (지능정보연구)

Korea Intelligent Information System Society (한국지능정보시스템학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on the Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Decision Making : Focusing on Human-AI Collaboration and Decision-Maker's Personality Trait

인공지능이 의사결정에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구 : 인간과 인공지능의 협업 및 의사결정자의 성격 특성을 중심으로

  • Lee, JeongSeon (Center for Institutional Research, Sookmyung Women's University) ;
  • Suh, Bomil (Division of Business Administration, Sookmyung Women's University) ;
  • Kwon, YoungOk (Division of Business Administration, Sookmyung Women's University)
  • 이정선 (숙명여자대학교 대학IR센터) ;
  • 서보밀 (숙명여자대학교 경영학부) ;
  • 권영옥 (숙명여자대학교 경영학부)
  • Received : 2021.06.23
  • Accepted : 2021.09.06
  • Published : 2021.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a key technology that will change the future the most. It affects the industry as a whole and daily life in various ways. As data availability increases, artificial intelligence finds an optimal solution and infers/predicts through self-learning. Research and investment related to automation that discovers and solves problems on its own are ongoing continuously. Automation of artificial intelligence has benefits such as cost reduction, minimization of human intervention and the difference of human capability. However, there are side effects, such as limiting the artificial intelligence's autonomy and erroneous results due to algorithmic bias. In the labor market, it raises the fear of job replacement. Prior studies on the utilization of artificial intelligence have shown that individuals do not necessarily use the information (or advice) it provides. Algorithm error is more sensitive than human error; so, people avoid algorithms after seeing errors, which is called "algorithm aversion." Recently, artificial intelligence has begun to be understood from the perspective of the augmentation of human intelligence. We have started to be interested in Human-AI collaboration rather than AI alone without human. A study of 1500 companies in various industries found that human-AI collaboration outperformed AI alone. In the medicine area, pathologist-deep learning collaboration dropped the pathologist cancer diagnosis error rate by 85%. Leading AI companies, such as IBM and Microsoft, are starting to adopt the direction of AI as augmented intelligence. Human-AI collaboration is emphasized in the decision-making process, because artificial intelligence is superior in analysis ability based on information. Intuition is a unique human capability so that human-AI collaboration can make optimal decisions. In an environment where change is getting faster and uncertainty increases, the need for artificial intelligence in decision-making will increase. In addition, active discussions are expected on approaches that utilize artificial intelligence for rational decision-making. This study investigates the impact of artificial intelligence on decision-making focuses on human-AI collaboration and the interaction between the decision maker personal traits and advisor type. The advisors were classified into three types: human, artificial intelligence, and human-AI collaboration. We investigated perceived usefulness of advice and the utilization of advice in decision making and whether the decision-maker's personal traits are influencing factors. Three hundred and eleven adult male and female experimenters conducted a task that predicts the age of faces in photos and the results showed that the advisor type does not directly affect the utilization of advice. The decision-maker utilizes it only when they believed advice can improve prediction performance. In the case of human-AI collaboration, decision-makers higher evaluated the perceived usefulness of advice, regardless of the decision maker's personal traits and the advice was more actively utilized. If the type of advisor was artificial intelligence alone, decision-makers who scored high in conscientiousness, high in extroversion, or low in neuroticism, high evaluated the perceived usefulness of the advice so they utilized advice actively. This study has academic significance in that it focuses on human-AI collaboration that the recent growing interest in artificial intelligence roles. It has expanded the relevant research area by considering the role of artificial intelligence as an advisor of decision-making and judgment research, and in aspects of practical significance, suggested views that companies should consider in order to enhance AI capability. To improve the effectiveness of AI-based systems, companies not only must introduce high-performance systems, but also need employees who properly understand digital information presented by AI, and can add non-digital information to make decisions. Moreover, to increase utilization in AI-based systems, task-oriented competencies, such as analytical skills and information technology capabilities, are important. in addition, it is expected that greater performance will be achieved if employee's personal traits are considered.

인공지능(Artificial Intelligence)은 미래를 가장 크게 변화시킬 핵심 동력으로 산업 전반과 개인의 일상생활에 다양한 형태로 영향을 미치고 있다. 무엇보다 활용 가능한 데이터가 증가함에 따라 더욱더 많은 기업과 개인들이 인공지능 기술을 이용하여 데이터로부터 유용한 정보를 추출하고 이를 의사결정에 활용하고 있다. 인공지능에 관한 기존 연구는 모방 가능한 업무의 자동화에 초점을 두고 있으나, 인간을 배제한 자동화는 장점 못지않게 알고리즘 편향(Algorithms bias)으로 발생되는 오류나 자율성(Autonomy)의 한계점, 그리고 일자리 대체 등 사회적 부작용을 보여주고 있다. 최근 들어, 인간지능의 강화를 위한 증강 지능 (Augmented intelligence)으로서 인간과 인공지능의 협업에 관한 연구가 주목을 받고 있으며 기업도 관심을 가지기 시작하였다. 본 연구는 의사결정을 위해 조언(Advice)을 제공하는 조언자의 유형을 인간, 인공지능, 그리고 인간과 인공지능 협업의 세 가지로 나누고, 조언자의 유형과 의사결정자의 성격 특성이 의사결정에 미치는 영향을 살펴보았다. 311명의 실험자를 대상으로 사진 속 얼굴을 보고 나이를 예측하는 업무를 진행하였으며, 연구 결과 의사결정자가 조언활용을 하려면 먼저 조언의 유용성을 높게 인지하여하는 것으로 나타났다. 또한 의사결정자의 성격 특성이 조언자 유형별로 조언의 유용성을 인지하고 조언을 활용하는 데에 미치는 영향을 살펴본 결과, 인간과 인공지능의 협업 형태인 경우 의사결정자의 성격 특성에 무관하게 조언의 유용성을 더 높게 인지하고 적극적으로 조언을 활용하는 것으로 나타났다. 인공지능 단독으로 활용될 경우에는 성격 특성 중 성실성과 외향성이 강하고 신경증이 낮은 의사결정자가 조언의 유용성을 더 높게 인지하고 조언을 활용하는 것으로 나타났다. 본 연구는 인공지능의 역할을 의사결정과 판단(Decision Making and Judgment) 연구 분야의 조언자의 역할로 보고 관련 연구를 확장하였다는데 학문적 의의가 있으며, 기업이 인공지능 활용 역량을 제고하기 위해 고려해야 할 점들을 제시하였다는데 실무적 의의가 있다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 논문은 2019년 대한민국 교육부와 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임 (NRF-2019S1A5B5A07111490)

References

  1. Bano, S., U.U. Shah, and S. Ali, "Personality and technology: Big five personality traits as descriptors of universal acceptance and usage of technology UTAUT," Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal)(2019). Available at https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/2773/.
  2. Baron, R. and D. A. Kenny, "The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychology: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.51(1986), 1173-1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
  3. Bonaccio, S. and R. S. Dalal, "Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol.101, No.2 (2006), 127-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.07.001
  4. Brooks, A. W. and M. Schweitzer, "Can nervous Nelly negotiate? How anxiety causes negotiators to make low first offers, exit early, and earn less profit," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol.115 (2011), 43-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.01.008
  5. Burton, J. W., M. K. Stein, and T. B. Jensen, "A Systematic Review of Algorithm Aversion in Augmented Decision Making," Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol.33, No.2(2020), 220-239. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2155
  6. Castelo, N., M. W. Bos, and D. R. Lehmann, "Task-dependent algorithm aversion," Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.56, No.5(2019), 809-825. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243719851788
  7. Cerin, E. and D. Mackinnon, "A commentary on current practice in mediating variable analyses in behavioral nutrition and physical activity," Public Health Nutrition, Vol.12, No.8(2009), 1182-1188. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1368980008003649
  8. Choi, K., M. Kim, M. Kim, and D. Moon, Korea Artificial Intelligence Forecast, 2019-2023, IDC, 2020.
  9. Chung, D., J. Jang, H. Shin, G. Han, D. Kim, and H. Yoon, "The Usage Intention of USIM Application Services in Mobile Environments: Focusing on the Extended Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)," The Journal of Industrial Innovation, Vol.25, No.4(2009), 105-144.
  10. Colson, E., "What AI-Driven Decision Making Looks Like," Harvard Business review, July(2019), 2-8.
  11. Dalal, R. S. and S. Bonaccio, "What types of advice do decision-makers prefer?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol.112, No.1(2010), 11-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.11.007
  12. Davenport, T.H. and J. Kirby, "Beyond automation," Harvard Business Review, Vol.93, No.6(2015), 59-65.
  13. David. S. and M. Vikram, "Intelligent Automation: A New Era of Innovation," Deloitte Insights (2014)
  14. Davis, F. D., "Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology," MIS Quarterly, Vol.13(1989), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
  15. Dawes, R. M., D. Faust, and P. E. Meehl, "Clinical versus actuarial judgment," Science, Vol.243, No.4899(1989), 1668-1674. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.2648573
  16. Dietvorst, B. J., J. P. Simmons, and C. Massey, "Algorithm Aversion: People Erroneously Avoid Algorithms after Seeing Them Err.," Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol.144, No.1(2015), 114-126. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000033
  17. Dietvorst, B. J., J. P. Simmons, and C. Massey, "Overcoming Algorithm Aversion: People will Use Imperfect Algorithms If They Can (Even Slightly) Modify Them," Management Science, Vol.64, No.3(2016),1155-1170. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2643
  18. Digman, J. M., "Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model," Annual Review of Psychology, Vol.41(1990), 417-440. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.002221
  19. Duan Y, J. S. Edwards, and Y. Dwivedi, "Artificial intelligence for decision making in the era of Big Data-evolution, challenges and research agenda," International Journal of Information Management, Vol.48(2019), 63-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.01.021
  20. Fugener, A., J. Grahl, A. Gupta, and W. Ketter, Collaboration and Delegation Between Humans and AI: An Experimental Investigation of the Future of Work, ERIM Report Series, 2019.
  21. Gino, F., "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, Vol.107, No.2(2008), 234-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.03.001
  22. Gino, F., A. Wood Brooks, and M. E. Schweitzer, "Anxiety, advice and the ability to discern: Feeling anxious motivates individuals to seek and use advice," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.102(2012), 497-512. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026413
  23. Gino, F. and D. A. Moore, "Effects of Task Difficulty on Use of Advice," Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol.20, No.1(2007), 21-35. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.539
  24. Goldberg, L. R., "An alternative description of personality: The big-five factor structure," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.59, No.6(1990), 1216-1229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216
  25. Gosling, S.D., P.J. Rentfrow, and WB. Swann Jr, "A very brief measure of the Big Five personality domains," Journal of Research in Personality, Vol.37(2003), 504-528. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1
  26. Gu, L. and J. Wang, "A Study of Exploring The "BIG FIVE" and Task Technology Fit in Web-Based Decision Support Systems," Issues in Information Systems, Vol.10, No.2 (2009), 210-217.
  27. Harvey, N. and I. Fischer, "Taking Advice: Accepting Help, Improving Judgment, and Sharing Responsibility," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol.70, No.2(1997), 117-133. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1997.2697
  28. Hayes, A. F., "Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical Mediation Analysis in the New Millennium," Communication Monographs, Vol.76, No.4 (2009), 408-420. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750903310360
  29. Hayes, A. F., Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach, Guilford Press, 2013.
  30. Howard, C. and A. Rowsell-Jones, 2019 CIO Survey: CIOs Have Awoken to the Importance of AI, Gartner, 2019
  31. IBM, Transparency and trust in the cognitive era, IBM Think Blog, 2017, Available at https://www.ibm.com/blogs/think/2017/01/ibm-cognitive-principles. January 17.
  32. Jarrahi, M. H., "Artificial intelligence and the future of work: Human-AI symbiosis in organizational decision making," Business Horizons, Vol.61, No.4(2018), 577-586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.03.007
  33. Jung, S. and D. Seo, "Assessing Mediated Moderation and Moderated Mediation: Guidelines and Empirical Illustration," The Korean Journal of Psychology: General, Vol.35, No.1(2016), 257-282. https://doi.org/10.22257/kjp.2016.03.35.1.257
  34. Kang, S., "Interactive Justice as a Moderated Mediator between Open Communication and Knowledge-sharing Intention," Quarterly Journal of Labor Policy, Vol.18, No.1(2018), 1-38. https://doi.org/10.22914/JLP.2018.18.1.001
  35. Kim, B., J. Ahn, and Y. Choi, "A Study on the Relationship among Personal Characters of Consumer, Human Brand Attachment, and Loyalty : Focused on Big Five Model," Advertising research, vol.77(2007), 173-195.
  36. Koo, K., "Artificial Intelligence Technology and Industrial application case," IITP Weekly ICT Trends, Vol.3(2019), 15-27.
  37. Lakhal, S. and H. Khechine, "Relating personality (Big Five) to the core constructs of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology," Journal of Computers in Education, Vol.4, No.3(2017), 251-282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-017-0086-5
  38. Lee, C., H. Yun, C. Lee, and J. Lee, " Factors Affecting Continuous Intention to Use Mobile Wallet : Based on Value-based Adoption Model," The Journal of Society for e-Business Studies, Vol.20, No.1(2015), 117-135. https://doi.org/10.7838/JSEBS.2015.20.1.117
  39. Leslie,D., Understanding artificial intelligence ethics and safety: A guide for the responsible design and implementation of AI systems in the public sector, The Alan Turing Institute, London, 2019.
  40. Logg, J. M., J. A. Minson, and D. A. Moore, "Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol.151(2019), 90-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.12.005
  41. MacKinnon, D. P., C. M. Lockwood, and J. Williams, "Confidence limits for the indirect effect: distribution of the product and resampling methods," Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol.39(2004), 99-128. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4
  42. Madhavan, P. and DA. Wiegmann, "Effects of information source, pedigree, and reliability on operator interaction with decision support systems," Human Factors, Vol.49, No.5 (2007), 773-785. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872007X230154
  43. Nam, S., S. Shin, and C. Jin, "A Meta-analysis and Review of External Factors based on the Technology Acceptance Model:Focusing on the Journals Related to Smartphone in Korea," J. Korea Inst. Inf. Commun. Eng., Vol.18, No.4(2014), 848-854. https://doi.org/10.6109/JKIICE.2014.18.4.848
  44. Nunes, A., T. Limpo, C. F. Lima, and S. L. Castro, "Short scales for the assessment of personality traits: Development and validation of the Portuguese Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI)," Frontiers in Psychology, Vol.9, No.461(2018).
  45. Onkal, D., G. Paul, T. Mary, G. Sinan, and P. Andrew, "The relative influence of advice from human experts and statistical methods on forecast adjustments," Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol.22, No.4(2009), 390-409. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.637
  46. Prahl, A., F. Dexter, M. T. Braun, and L. Van Swol, "Review of experimental studies in social psychology of small groups when an optimal choice exists and application to operating room management decision-making," Anesthesia & Analgesia, Vol.117, No.5 (2013), 1221-1229. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0b013e3182a0eed1
  47. Prahl, A. and L. Van Swol, "Understanding algorithm aversion: When is advice from automation discounted?," Journal of Forecasting, Vol.36(2017), 691-702. https://doi.org/10.1002/for.2464
  48. Preacher, K. J. and A. F. Hayes, "Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models," Behavior Research Methods, Vol.40, No.3(2008), 879-891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
  49. Preacher, K. J. and A. F. Hayes, "SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models," Behavior Research Methods, Vol.3, No.4(2004), 717-731.
  50. Promberger, M. and J. Baron, "Do patients trust computers?," Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol.19(2006), 455-468. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.542
  51. Raisch, S. and S. Krakowski, "Artificial Intelligence and Management: The Automation- Augmentation Paradox," Academy of Management Review, Vol.46(2021), 192-210. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0072
  52. Ronayne, D. and D. Sgroi, "Ignoring Good Advice," CAGE Online Working Paper Series, 359 (2018)
  53. Seo, H., "A Preliminary Discussion on Policy Decision Making of AI in The Fourth Industrial Revolution," Informatization Policy, Vol.26, No.3(2019), 3-35.
  54. Shankar, V., "How artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping retailing," Journal of Retailing, Vol.94, No.4(2018), vi-xi. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(18)30076-9
  55. Sobel. M. E., "Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models," Sociological Methodology, Vol.13(1982), 290-312. https://doi.org/10.2307/270723
  56. Svendsen, G. B., J. A. K. Johnsen., L Almas-Sorensen, and J. Vitterso, "Personality and technology acceptance: the influence of personality factors on the core constructs of the Technology Acceptance Model,". Behavior & Information Technology, Vol.32, No.4 (2013), 323-334. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2011.553740
  57. Tetlock, P. E., "Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice," Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol.7(1985), 297-332.
  58. Van Swol, L. M., J. E. Paik, and A. Prahl, Advice recipients: The psychology of advice utilization, The Oxford handbook of advice (p. 21-41). Oxford University Press, 2018
  59. Walczuch, R. and H. Lundgren, "Psychological antecedents of institution based consumer Trust in e-retailing," Information & Management, Vol.4(2004), 159-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.12.009
  60. Wang, D., A. Khosla, R. Gargeya, H. Irshad, and A. H. Beck, Deep learning for identifying metastatic breast cancer, arXiv, 2016, Available at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.05718.
  61. Wilson, H. J. and P. R. Daugherty, "Collaborative Intelligence: Humans and AI Are Joining Forces," Harvard Business Review, July-August(2018).
  62. World Economic Forum, The Future of Jobs Report, 2018.
  63. Yaniv, I., "The benefit of additional opinions," Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol.13 (2004), 75-78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00278.x
  64. Yasa, N. N. K., "The Application of Technology Acceptance Model on Internet banking Users in the City of Denpasar," Journal of Management and Entrepreneurship, Vol.16, No.2(2014), 93-102.
  65. Yeomans, M., A. K. Shah, S. Mullainathan, and J. M. Kleinberg, "Making Sense of Recommendations," Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol.32(2019), 403-414. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2118
  66. Yusoff, Y. M., Z. Muhammad, M. Zahari, E.S. Pasah, and E. Robert, "Individual Differences, Perceived Ease of Use, and Perceived Usefulness in the E-Library Usage," Comput. Inf. Sci., Vol.2(2009), 76-83.
  67. Yutaka, M., Artificial Intelligence and Deep Learning: Changes and Innovations in the Industrial Structure of Artificial Intelligence, Dong-a mnb, 2015.
  68. Zhang, D., Z. Daniel, M. Saurabh, E. Brynjolfsson, J. Etchemendy, G. Deep, G. Barbara, L. Terah, M. James, C. N. Juan, S. Michael, S., S. Yoav, C. Jack, and P. Raymond, The AI Index 2021 Annual Report,arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.06312, 2021
  69. Ziegler, M., E. Danay, M. Heene, J. Asendorpf, and M. Buhner, "Openness, fluid intelligence, and crystallized intelligence: Toward an integrative model," Journal of Research in Personality, Vol.46, No.2(2012), 173-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.01.002