REVIEW 1 cited by
Do Expressions Change Decisions? Exploring the Impact of AI's Explanation Tone on Decision-Making
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Explanatory information helps users to evaluate the suggestions offered by AI-driven decision support systems. With large language models, adjusting explanation expressions has become much easier. However, how these expressions influence human decision-making remains largely unexplored. This study investigated the effect of explanation tone (e.g., formal or humorous) on decision-making, focusing on AI roles and user attributes. We conducted user experiments across three scenarios depending on AI roles (assistant, second-opinion provider, and expert) using datasets designed with varying tones. The results revealed that tone significantly influenced decision-making regardless of user attributes in the second-opinion scenario, whereas its impact varied by user attributes in the assistant and expert scenarios. In addition, older users were more influenced by tone, and highly extroverted users exhibited discrepancies between their perceptions and decisions. Furthermore, open-ended questionnaires highlighted that users expect tone adjustments to enhance their experience while emphasizing the importance of tone consistency and ethical considerations. Our findings provide crucial insights into the design of explanation expressions.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
tAIfa: Enhancing Team Effectiveness and Cohesion with AI-Generated Automated Feedback
An LLM-powered Slack agent that generates automated team and individual feedback increased conversation duration and speaker turn frequency in a between-subjects study of 18 teams, with no significant effect on task p...
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.