Human Cognitive Biases in Explanation-Based Interaction: The Case of Within and Between Session Order Effect

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.04764v1
• Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2025 12:59:54 GMT
• Title: Human Cognitive Biases in Explanation-Based Interaction: The Case of Within and Between Session Order Effect
• Authors: Dario Pesenti, Alessandro Bogani, Katya Tentori, Stefano Teso,
• Abstract summary: Explanatory Interactive Learning (XIL) is a powerful interactive learning framework designed to enable users to customize and correct AI models by interacting with their explanations.<n>Recent studies have raised concerns that explanatory interaction may trigger order effects, a well-known cognitive bias in which the sequence of presented items influences users' trust and, critically, the quality of their feedback.<n>To clarify the interplay between order effects and explanatory interaction, we ran two larger-scale user studies designed to mimic common XIL tasks.
• Score: 46.80756527630539
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Explanatory Interactive Learning (XIL) is a powerful interactive learning framework designed to enable users to customize and correct AI models by interacting with their explanations. In a nutshell, XIL algorithms select a number of items on which an AI model made a decision (e.g. images and their tags) and present them to users, together with corresponding explanations (e.g. image regions that drive the model's decision). Then, users supply corrective feedback for the explanations, which the algorithm uses to improve the model. Despite showing promise in debugging tasks, recent studies have raised concerns that explanatory interaction may trigger order effects, a well-known cognitive bias in which the sequence of presented items influences users' trust and, critically, the quality of their feedback. We argue that these studies are not entirely conclusive, as the experimental designs and tasks employed differ substantially from common XIL use cases, complicating interpretation. To clarify the interplay between order effects and explanatory interaction, we ran two larger-scale user studies (n = 713 total) designed to mimic common XIL tasks. Specifically, we assessed order effects both within and between debugging sessions by manipulating the order in which correct and wrong explanations are presented to participants. Order effects had a limited, through significant impact on users' agreement with the model (i.e., a behavioral measure of their trust), and only when examined withing debugging sessions, not between them. The quality of users' feedback was generally satisfactory, with order effects exerting only a small and inconsistent influence in both experiments. Overall, our findings suggest that order effects do not pose a significant issue for the successful employment of XIL approaches. More broadly, our work contributes to the ongoing efforts for understanding human factors in AI.

Related papers

• When Models Know More Than They Can Explain: Quantifying Knowledge Transfer in Human-AI Collaboration [79.69935257008467]
  We introduce Knowledge Integration and Transfer Evaluation (KITE), a conceptual and experimental framework for Human-AI knowledge transfer capabilities.<n>We conduct the first large-scale human study (N=118) explicitly designed to measure it.<n>In our two-phase setup, humans first ideate with an AI on problem-solving strategies, then independently implement solutions, isolating model explanations' influence on human understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T20:48:16Z)
• CM-DQN: A Value-Based Deep Reinforcement Learning Model to Simulate Confirmation Bias [0.0]
  We propose a new algorithm in Deep Reinforcement Learning, CM-DQN, to simulate the human decision-making process. We test in Lunar Lander environment with confirmatory, disconfirmatory bias and non-biased to observe the learning effects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-10T08:16:13Z)
• Modulating Language Model Experiences through Frictions [56.17593192325438]
  Over-consumption of language model outputs risks propagating unchecked errors in the short-term and damaging human capabilities for critical thinking in the long-term. We propose selective frictions for language model experiences, inspired by behavioral science interventions, to dampen misuse.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T16:31:11Z)
• Understanding Before Recommendation: Semantic Aspect-Aware Review Exploitation via Large Language Models [53.337728969143086]
  Recommendation systems harness user-item interactions like clicks and reviews to learn their representations. Previous studies improve recommendation accuracy and interpretability by modeling user preferences across various aspects and intents. We introduce a chain-based prompting approach to uncover semantic aspect-aware interactions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-26T15:44:09Z)
• Optimising Human-AI Collaboration by Learning Convincing Explanations [62.81395661556852]
  We propose a method for a collaborative system that remains safe by having a human making decisions. Ardent enables efficient and effective decision-making by adapting to individual preferences for explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-13T16:00:16Z)
• Our Model Achieves Excellent Performance on MovieLens: What Does it Mean? [43.3971105361606]
  We conduct a meticulous analysis of the MovieLens dataset. There are significant differences in user interactions at the different stages when a user interacts with the MovieLens platform. We discuss the discrepancy between the interaction generation mechanism that is employed by the MovieLens system and that of typical real-world recommendation scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-19T13:44:32Z)
• Homophily and Incentive Effects in Use of Algorithms [17.55279695774825]
  We present a crowdsourcing vignette study designed to assess the impacts of two plausible factors on AI-informed decision-making. First, we examine homophily -- do people defer more to models that tend to agree with them? Second, we consider incentives -- how do people incorporate a (known) cost structure in the hybrid decision-making setting?
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-19T17:11:04Z)
• Information Interaction Profile of Choice Adoption [2.9972063833424216]
  We introduce an efficient method to infer the entities interaction network and its evolution according to the temporal distance separating interacting entities. The interaction profile allows characterizing the mechanisms of the interaction processes. We show that the effect of a combination of exposures on a user is more than the sum of each exposure's independent effect--there is an interaction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-28T10:42:25Z)
• Investigating Human Response, Behaviour, and Preference in Joint-Task Interaction [3.774610219328564]
  We have designed an experiment in order to examine human behaviour and response as they interact with Explainable Planning (XAIP) agents. We also present the results from an empirical analysis where we examined the behaviour of the two agents for simulated users.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-27T22:16:59Z)
• Explaining Black Box Predictions and Unveiling Data Artifacts through Influence Functions [55.660255727031725]
  Influence functions explain the decisions of a model by identifying influential training examples. We conduct a comparison between influence functions and common word-saliency methods on representative tasks. We develop a new measure based on influence functions that can reveal artifacts in training data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-14T00:45:23Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.