A bonus task boosts people's willingness to offload cognition to an algorithm.
Algorithmic appreciation
Algorithmic aversion
Cognitive offloading
Human–computer collaboration
Human–computer interaction
Social cognition
Journal
Cognitive research: principles and implications
ISSN: 2365-7464
Titre abrégé: Cogn Res Princ Implic
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101697632
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Apr 2024
23 Apr 2024
Historique:
received:
02
08
2023
accepted:
03
04
2024
medline:
23
4
2024
pubmed:
23
4
2024
entrez:
23
4
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
With the increased sophistication of technology, humans have the possibility to offload a variety of tasks to algorithms. Here, we investigated whether the extent to which people are willing to offload an attentionally demanding task to an algorithm is modulated by the availability of a bonus task and by the knowledge about the algorithm's capacity. Participants performed a multiple object tracking (MOT) task which required them to visually track targets on a screen. Participants could offload an unlimited number of targets to a "computer partner". If participants decided to offload the entire task to the computer, they could instead perform a bonus task which resulted in additional financial gain-however, this gain was conditional on a high performance accuracy in the MOT task. Thus, participants should only offload the entire task if they trusted the computer to perform accurately. We found that participants were significantly more willing to completely offload the task if they were informed beforehand that the computer's accuracy was flawless (Experiment 1 vs. 2). Participants' offloading behavior was not significantly affected by whether the bonus task was incentivized or not (Experiment 2 vs. 3). These results combined with those from our previous study (Wahn et al. in PLoS ONE 18:e0286102, 2023), which did not include a bonus task but was identical otherwise, show that the human willingness to offload an attentionally demanding task to an algorithm is considerably boosted by the availability of a bonus task-even if not incentivized-and by the knowledge about the algorithm's capacity.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38652184
doi: 10.1186/s41235-024-00550-0
pii: 10.1186/s41235-024-00550-0
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
24Subventions
Organisme : Ministerium für Kultur und Wissenschaft des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen
ID : Collaborative Research Project INTERACT!
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Alnæs, D., Sneve, M. H., Espeseth, T., Endestad, T., Van De Pavert, S. H. P., & Laeng, B. (2014). Pupil size signals mental effort deployed during multiple object tracking and predicts brain activity in the dorsal attention network and the locus coeruleus. Journal of Vision, 14(4), 1–20.
doi: 10.1167/14.4.1
pubmed: 24692319
Alvarez, G. A., & Franconeri, S. L. (2007). How many objects can you track?: Evidence for a resource-limited attentive tracking mechanism. Journal of Vision, 7(13), 14.
doi: 10.1167/7.13.14
Bigman, Y. E., & Gray, K. (2018). People are averse to machines making moral decisions. Cognition, 181, 21–34.
doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.08.003
pubmed: 30107256
Burger, J. M., & Cooper, H. M. (1979). The desirability of control. Motivation and Emotion, 3(4), 381–393.
doi: 10.1007/BF00994052
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.
doi: 10.1007/BF02310555
Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P., & Massey, C. (2015). Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(1), 114–126.
doi: 10.1037/xge0000033
pubmed: 25401381
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160.
doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
pubmed: 19897823
Franke, T., Attig, C., & Wessel, D. (2019). A personal resource for technology interaction: Development and validation of the affinity for technology interaction (ATI) scale. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 35(6), 456–467.
doi: 10.1080/10447318.2018.1456150
Gilbert, S. (2023). Cognitive offloading is value-based decision making: Modelling cognitive effort and the expected value of memory. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/5e8mg
doi: 10.31234/osf.io/5e8mg
Grinschgl, S., Papenmeier, F., & Meyerhoff, H. S. (2023). Mutual interplay between cognitive offloading and secondary task performance. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 30, 1–12.
doi: 10.3758/s13423-023-02312-3
Intriligator, J., & Cavanagh, P. (2001). The spatial resolution of visual attention. Cognitive Psychology, 43, 171–216.
doi: 10.1006/cogp.2001.0755
pubmed: 11689021
Jussupow, E., Benbasat, I., & Heinzl, A. (2020). Why are we averse toward algorithms? A comprehensive literature review on algorithm aversion. In Proceedings of the 28th European conference on information systems (ECIS), An Online AIS Conference, June 15–17, 2020. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2020_rp/168
Körber, M. (2019). Theoretical considerations and development of a questionnaire to measure trust in automation. In S. Bagnara, R. Tartaglia, S. Albolino, T. Alexander, & Y. Fujita (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th congress of the international ergonomics association (IEA 2018): Volume VI: Transport ergonomics and human factors (TEHF), Aerospace human factors and ergonomics (1st ed., pp. 13–30). Springer.
doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-96074-6_2
Logg, J. M., Minson, J. A., & Moore, D. A. (2019). Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 151, 90–103.
doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.12.005
Marois, R., & Ivanoff, J. (2005). Capacity limits of information processing in the brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(6), 296–305.
doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2005.04.010
pubmed: 15925809
Mosier, K. L., & Skitka, L. J. (1999, September). Automation use and automation bias. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting (Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 344–348). SAGE Publications.
Peters, M., Laeng, B., Latham, K., Jackson, M., Zaiyouna, R., & Richardson, C. (1995). A redrawn Vandenberg and Kuse mental rotations test – Different versions and factors that affect performance. Brain and Cognition, 28(1), 39–58.
doi: 10.1006/brcg.1995.1032
pubmed: 7546667
Pylyshyn, Z. W., & Storm, R. W. (1988). Tracking multiple independent targets: Evidence for a parallel tracking mechanism. Spatial Vision, 3(3), 179–197.
doi: 10.1163/156856888X00122
pubmed: 3153671
Risko, E. F., & Gilbert, S. J. (2016). Cognitive offloading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(9), 676–688.
doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.002
pubmed: 27542527
Schönbrodt, F. D., & Perugini, M. (2013). At what sample size do correlations stabilize? Journal of Research in Personality, 47(5), 609–612.
doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.009
Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296.
doi: 10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
Vandenberg, S. G., & Kuse, A. R. (1978). Mental rotations, a group test of three-dimensional spatial visualization. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47(2), 599–604.
doi: 10.2466/pms.1978.47.2.599
pubmed: 724398
Wahn, B., Ferris, D. P., Hairston, W. D., & König, P. (2016). Pupil sizes scale with attentional load and task experience in a multiple object tracking task. PLoS ONE, 11(12), e0168087.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168087
pubmed: 27977762
pmcid: 5157994
Wahn, B., & Kingstone, A. (2021). Humans share task load with a computer partner if (they believe that) it acts human-like. Acta Psychologica, 212, 103205.
doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103205
pubmed: 33202313
Wahn, B., & König, P. (2015). Audition and vision share spatial attentional resources, yet attentional load does not disrupt audiovisual integration. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1084.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01084
pubmed: 26284008
pmcid: 4518141
Wahn, B., & König, P. (2017). Is attentional resource allocation across sensory modalities task-dependent? Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 13(1), 83–96.
doi: 10.5709/acp-0209-2
pubmed: 28450975
pmcid: 5405449
Wahn, B., König, P., & Kingstone, A. (2021). Interpersonal coordination in joint multiple object tracking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 47(9), 1166–1181.
pubmed: 34694847
Wahn, B., Ruuskanen, V., Kingstone, A., & Mathôt, S. (2021). Coordination effort in joint action is reflected in pupil size. Acta Psychologica, 215, 103291.
doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2021.103291
pubmed: 33770664
Wahn, B., Schmitz, L., Gerster, F. N., & Weiss, M. (2023). Offloading under cognitive load: Humans are willing to offload parts of an attentionally demanding task to an algorithm. PLoS ONE, 18(5), e0286102.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286102
pubmed: 37205658
pmcid: 10198496
Wahn, B., & Sinnett, S. (2019). Shared or distinct attentional resources? Confounds in dual task designs, countermeasures, and guidelines. Multisensory Research, 32(2), 145–163.
doi: 10.1163/22134808-20181328
pubmed: 31059470
Weis, P. P., & Wiese, E. (2019). Using tools to help us think: Actual but also believed reliability modulates cognitive offloading. Human Factors, 61(2), 243–254.
doi: 10.1177/0018720818797553
pubmed: 30169972
Weis, P. P., & Wiese, E. (2019). Problem solvers adjust cognitive offloading based on performance goals. Cognitive Science, 43(12), e12802.
doi: 10.1111/cogs.12802
pubmed: 31858630
Weis, P. P., & Wiese, E. (2022). Know your cognitive environment! Mental models as crucial determinant of offloading preferences. Human Factors, 64(3), 499–513.
doi: 10.1177/0018720820956861
pubmed: 32955351
Wiese, E., Weis, P. P., Bigman, Y., Kapsaskis, K., & Gray, K. (2022). It’s a match: Task assignment in human-robot collaboration depends on mind perception. International Journal of Social Robotics, 14, 1–8.
doi: 10.1007/s12369-021-00771-z
Wu, R., Ferguson, A. M., & Inzlicht, M. (2023). Do humans prefer cognitive effort over doing nothing? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(4), 1069.
doi: 10.1037/xge0001320
pubmed: 36355768