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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".