The effect of individual and task characteristics on decision aid reliance

ABSTRACT

This research explores reliance behaviours of decision-makers using a decision aid. Objective and subjective task characteristics in the form of task complexity and task difficulty, respectively, are examined, along with the effect of the individual characteristic of expertise. A total of 130 subjects (65 novices and 65 experienced practitioners) completed a lab experiment using a decision aid (Insolve-DG) to help them make decisions for two insolvency tasks with differing levels of complexity. The research finds that the objective task characteristic (task complexity) and individual characteristic (expertise) both affect reliance behaviours; however, their effects are fully mediated by the subjective task characteristic (task difficulty). Expertise and task complexity are both associated with the degree of task difficulty experienced by an individual user: increasing task complexity increases task difficulty, and increasing expertise reduces task difficulty. Task difficulty and task complexity are established as different constructs; and importantly it is task difficulty, not task complexity, that ultimately affects reliance.

KEYWORDS:

• Reliance
• task complexity
• task difficulty
• expertise
• decision aid
• decision support

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 Insolve-DG is an independent artefact; its commonality with INSOLVE lies in the application domain of Insolvency decision-making, and in the model of practitioner decision-making (gathered during knowledge acquisition processes in the development of INSOLVE).

2 The reported data were obtained from an experiment where participants used different versions of Insolve-DG. Sensitivity analysis revealed that the technology characteristics variation did not have a significant effect on either task difficulty or reliance. A control variable representing these differing versions (Decisional Guidance) is reported in this analysis; no significant results were obtained.

3 Sensitivity analysis revealed that the lab session attended created no significant effect on any of the variables examined.

4 This case study was originally published as ‘Digitron’ (King 1989). The version of the case published as a going-concern case (Arnold et al. 2000) was titled ‘Digitron’. The version of the case published as an insolvency case (Arnold et al. 2000) was titled ‘Digita’.

5 A control variable representing the order in which cases were attempted is reported in the analysis; no significant results were obtained.

6 The original scale contained five items. Factor analysis revealed that two items did not load along with the other three items. These two items were dropped from further analysis.