Whose Wisdom? Human Biases for Decision Support System Source and Scale

Users form snap judgments about decision‑support systems (DSS) that guide later reliance. We examined how those judgments depend on DSS source—machine‑learning algorithm (ML) versus wisdom‑of‑the‑crowd (WoC)—and data scale (small, medium, large). Seventy‑eight participants repeatedly chose between paired advisers (e.g., medium‑ML vs. large‑WoC) and then performed a six‑trial visual‑search task with help from their selected advisor. Participants showed no inherent bias for ML or WoC but consistently preferred advisers built on larger datasets. Within six trials, reliability estimates were calibrated to observed accuracy, indicating rapid trust adjustment. Findings suggest users intuitively weighed sample size over provenance when forecasting DSS performance and that well‑sized crowd systems can compete with contemporary ML advisers.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
Published
2025-08-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/10711813251360707
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Big Data and Business Intelligence
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.57
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Whose Wisdom? Human Biases for Decision Support System Source and Scale

Adolfo R. Escobedo, Colleen E. Patton, Caden M. Miller, Ebernoe Guzman-Bonilla
2 citations
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
Big Data and Business Intelligence
4.57
article

Whose Wisdom? Human Biases for Decision Support System Source and Scale

Adolfo R. Escobedo, Colleen E. Patton, Caden M. Miller, Ebernoe Guzman-Bonilla
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Users form snap judgments about decision‑support systems (DSS) that guide later reliance. We examined how those judgments depend on DSS source—machine‑learning algorithm (ML) versus wisdom‑of‑the‑crowd (WoC)—and data scale (small, medium, large). Seventy‑eight participants repeatedly chose between paired advisers (e.g., medium‑ML vs. large‑WoC) and then performed a six‑trial visual‑search task with help from their selected advisor. Participants showed no inherent bias for ML or WoC but consistently preferred advisers built on larger datasets. Within six trials, reliability estimates were calibrated to observed accuracy, indicating rapid trust adjustment. Findings suggest users intuitively weighed sample size over provenance when forecasting DSS performance and that well‑sized crowd systems can compete with contemporary ML advisers.

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual MeetingVol. 69(1)
North Carolina State University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Big Data and Business Intelligence
4.57
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Whose Wisdom? Human Biases for Decision Support System Source and Scale — Adolfo R. Escobedo, Colleen E. Patton, et al. · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS