Recommendation Agent Adoption: How Recommendation Presentation Influences Employees’ Perceptions, Behaviors, and Decision Quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to report the results of a laboratory experiment that investigated how assortment planners’ perceptions, usage behavior, and decision quality are influenced by the way recommendations of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based recommendation agent (RA) are presented. A within-subject laboratory experiment was conducted with twenty subjects. Participants perceptions and usage behavior toward an RA while making decisions were assessed using validated measurement scales and eye-tracking technology. The results of this study show the importance of a transparent RA demanding less cognitive effort to understand and access the explanations of a transparent RA on assortment planners’ perceptions (i.e., source credibility, sense of control, decision quality, and satisfaction), usage behavior, and decision quality. Results from this study suggest that designing RAs with more transparency for the users bring perceptual and attitudinal benefits that influence both the adoption and continuous use of those systems by employees. This study contributes to filling the literature gap on RAs in organizational contexts, thus advancing knowledge in the human–computer interaction literature. The findings of this study provide guidelines for RA developers and user experience (UX) designers on how to best create and present an AI-based RA to employees.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".