Confirmative or Normative? Information Redundancy in Decision Support Systems

Abstract

Decision Support Systems (DSS) provide users with information that is combined with their existing knowledge or information from other available sources. We investigate how redundancy of the information from the DSS affects the decision to purchase decision support, as well as the use of and trust in the support. Participants performed a classification task. Depending on the condition, they could purchase advice from either an independent, partly redundant, or fully redundant DSS. Purchase decisions, classification performance and trust were recorded. Participants preferred to purchase the independent system, performed better with it and trusted it more, compared to the partly or fully redundant systems. There was no significant learning effect across blocks. Overall, the results support a model of more normative, rather than confirmative preferences for decision support.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ben-Yaakov

Bitan

Meyer

(2021). Do Users Know When to Buy Decision Support and How to Use it? In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 65, p. 1021).

Ben-Yaakov

Meyer

Wang

(2020). User detection of threats with different security measures. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Human-Machine Systems (ICHMS) (pp. 1–6).

Ben-Yaakov

Wang

Meyer

(2019). Choosing protection: User investments in security measures for cyber risk management. In International Conference on Decision and Game Theory for Security (pp. 33–44).

Goethals

G. R.

Nelson

R. E.

(1973). Similarity in the influence process: The belief-value distinction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25(1), 117.

Golman

Loewenstein

(2018). Information gaps: A theory of preferences regarding the presence and absence of information. Decision, 5(3), 143–164.

Gonzalez

(1994). When Words Speak Louder Than Actions: Another′ s Evaluations Can Appear More Diagnostic Than Their Decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58(2), 214–245.

Green

D. M.

Swets

J. A

. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. Wiley New York.

Hautus

M. J.

Macmillan

N. A.

Creelman

C. D.

(2021). Detection theory: A user’s guide. Routledge.

Hogarth

R. M.

(1989). On combining diagnostic ‘forecasts’: Thoughts and some evidence. International Journal of Forecasting, 5(4), 593–597.

10.

Jones

Sugden

(2001). Positive confirmation bias in the acquisition of information. Theory and Decision, 50(1), 59–99.

11.

Kahneman

Tversky

(1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80(4), 237.

12.

Kaiser

H. F.

Dickman

(1962). Sample and population score matrices and sample correlation matrices from an arbitrary population correlation matrix. Psychometrika, 27(2), 179–182.

13.

Krishnakumar

(2003). Intelligent systems for aerospace engineering-an overview.

14.

Maines

L. A.

(1990). The effect of forecast redundancy on judgments of a consensus forecast’s expected accuracy. Journal of Accounting Research, 28, 29–47.

15.

Meyer

(2001). Effects of Warning Validity and Proximity on Responses to Warnings. Human Factors, 43(4), 563–572.

16.

Meyer

Dembinsky

Raviv

(2020). Alerting about possible risks vs. blocking risky choices: A quantitative model and its empirical evaluation. Computers \& Security, 97, 101944.

17.

Parasuraman

Sheridan

T. B.

Wickens

C. D.

(2008). Situation awareness, mental workload, and trust in automation: Viable, empirically supported cognitive engineering constructs. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 2(2), 140–160.

18.

Rieger

Manzey

(2020). Human performance consequences of automated decision aids: the impact of time pressure. Human Factors, 0018720820965019.

19.

Soll

J. B.

(1999). Intuitive theories of information: Beliefs about the value of redundancy. Cognitive Psychology, 38(2), 317–346.

20.

Wickens

T. D.

(2001). Elementary signal detection theory. Oxford university press.