Do People Engage Cognitively with AI? Impact of AI Assistance on Incidental Learning

Abstract

When people receive advice while making difficult decisions, they often make better decisions in the moment and also increase their knowledge in the process. However, such incidental learning can only occur when people cognitively engage with the information they receive and process this information thoughtfully. How do people process the information and advice they receive from AI, and do they engage with it deeply enough to enable learning? To answer these questions, we conducted three experiments in which individuals were asked to make nutritional decisions and received simulated AI recommendations and explanations. In the first experiment, we found that when people were presented with both a recommendation and an explanation before making their choice, they made better decisions than they did when they received no such help, but they did not learn. In the second experiment, participants first made their own choice, and only then saw a recommendation and an explanation from AI; this condition also resulted in improved decisions, but no learning. However, in our third experiment, participants were presented with just an AI explanation but no recommendation and had to arrive at their own decision. This condition led to both more accurate decisions and learning gains. We hypothesize that learning gains in this condition were due to deeper engagement with explanations needed to arrive at the decisions. This work provides some of the most direct evidence to date that it may not be sufficient to include explanations together with AI-generated recommendation to ensure that people engage carefully with the AI-provided information. This work also presents one technique that enables incidental learning and, by implication, can help people process AI recommendations and explanations more carefully.

13 pages, 6 figures, to appear in ACM IUI'22

References in corpus (4)

• To Trust or to Think: Cognitive Forcing Functions Can Reduce Overreliance on AI in AI-assisted Decision-making
• Proxy Tasks and Subjective Measures Can Be Misleading in Evaluating Explainable AI Systems
• Designing AI for Trust and Collaboration in Time-Constrained Medical Decisions: A Sociotechnical Lens
• Leveraging Rationales to Improve Human Task Performance

Cited by in corpus (15)

• Towards Human-centered Explainable AI: A Survey of User Studies for Model Explanations
• Unreflected Acceptance -- Investigating the Negative Consequences of ChatGPT-Assisted Problem Solving in Physics Education
• Fostering Appropriate Reliance on Large Language Models: The Role of Explanations, Sources, and Inconsistencies
• One vs. Many: Comprehending Accurate Information from Multiple Erroneous and Inconsistent AI Generations
• AI, Help Me Think$\unicode{x2014}$but for Myself: Assisting People in Complex Decision-Making by Providing Different Kinds of Cognitive Support
• The Impact of Explanations on Fairness in Human-AI Decision-Making: Protected vs Proxy Features
• Beyond Recommendations: From Backward to Forward AI Support of Pilots' Decision-Making Process
• Fair Machine Guidance to Enhance Fair Decision Making in Biased People
• More AI Assistance Reduces Cognitive Engagement: Examining the AI Assistance Dilemma in AI-Supported Note-Taking
• Design Considerations for Human Oversight of AI: Insights from Co-Design Workshops and Work Design Theory
• Hevelius Report: Visualizing Web-Based Mobility Test Data For Clinical Decision and Learning Support
• Guidance Source Matters: How Guidance from AI, Expert, or a Group of Analysts Impacts Visual Data Preparation and Analysis
• Peer Recommendation Interventions for Health-related Social Support: a Feasibility Assessment
• Evaluation of Geographical Distortions in Language Models
• DiscipLink: Unfolding Interdisciplinary Information Seeking Process via Human-AI Co-Exploration