Abstract
The promise of computational decision aids, from review sites to emerging augmented cognition technology, is the potential for better choice outcomes. This promise is grounded in the notion that we understand human decision processes well enough to design useful interventions. Although researchers have made considerable advances in the understanding of human judgment and decision making, these efforts are mostly based on the analysis of simple, often linear choices. Cumulative Prospect Theory (CPT), a famous explanation for decision making under uncertainty, was developed and validated using binary choice experiments in which options varied on a single dimension. Behavioral science has largely followed this simplified methodology. Here, we introduce an experimental paradigm specifically for studying humans making complex choices that incorporate multiple variables with nonlinear interactions. The task involves tuning dials, each of which controls a different dimension of a nonlinear problem. Initial results show that in such an environment participants demonstrate classic cognitive artifacts, such as anchoring and adjusting, along with falling into exploitive traps that prevent adequate exploration of these complex decisions. Preventing such errors suggest a potentially valuable role for deploying algorithmic decision aids to enhance decision making in complex choices.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
A tutorial is available at http://nmgurney.com/complex-choice-landscape-maker/.
References
Cai, C.J., Winter, S., Steiner, D., Wilcox, L., Terry, M.: “hello ai": Uncovering the onboarding needs of medical practitioners for human-ai collaborative decision-making. In: Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3(CSCW), pp. 1–24 (2019)
Dietvorst, B.J., Simmons, J.P., Massey, C.: Algorithm aversion: people erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 144(1), 114 (2015)
Green, B., Chen, Y.: The principles and limits of algorithm-in-the-loop decision making. In: Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3(CSCW), pp. 1–24 (2019)
Grgic-Hlaca, N., Engel, C., Gummadi, K.P.: Human decision making with machine advice: an experiment on bailing and jailing. In: Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3 (2019)
Kauffman, S.A., Weinberger, E.D.: The nk model of rugged fitness landscapes and its application to maturation of the immune response. J. Theor. Biol. 141(2), 211–245 (1989)
Lee, M.C., Park, J.: There is no perfect evaluator: an investigation based on prospect theory. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 28(6), 383–392 (2018)
Lee, M.K., Jain, A., Cha, H.J., Ojha, S., Kusbit, D.: Procedural justice in algorithmic fairness: leveraging transparency and outcome control for fair algorithmic mediation. In: Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3(CSCW), pp. 1–26 (2019)
Levinthal, D.A.: Adaptation on rugged landscapes. Manage. Sci. 43(7), 934–950 (1997)
Logg, J.M., Minson, J.A., Moore, D.A.: Algorithm appreciation: people prefer algorithmic to human judgment. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 151, 90–103 (2019)
Poursabzi-Sangdeh, F., Goldstein, D.G., Hofman, J.M., Wortman Vaughan, J.W., Wallach, H.: Manipulating and measuring model interpretability. In: Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Fctors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–52 (2021)
Quinn, P., Cockburn, A.: Loss aversion and preferences in interaction. Hum.- Comput. Inter. 35(2), 143–190 (2020)
Romero, P.A., Arnold, F.H.: Exploring protein fitness landscapes by directed evolution. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 10(12), 866–876 (2009)
Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertain. 5(4), 297–323 (1992)
Wright, S., et al.: The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding, and selection in evolution (1932)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Gurney, N., King, T., Miller, J.H. (2022). An Experimental Method for Studying Complex Choices. In: Stephanidis, C., Antona, M., Ntoa, S., Salvendy, G. (eds) HCI International 2022 – Late Breaking Posters. HCII 2022. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1654. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19679-9_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19679-9_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-19678-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-19679-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)