Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
167 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
42 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Impact of Human-AI Interaction on User Trust and Reliance in AI-Assisted Qualitative Coding (2309.13858v1)

Published 25 Sep 2023 in cs.HC

Abstract: While AI shows promise for enhancing the efficiency of qualitative analysis, the unique human-AI interaction resulting from varied coding strategies makes it challenging to develop a trustworthy AI-assisted qualitative coding system (AIQCs) that supports coding tasks effectively. We bridge this gap by exploring the impact of varying coding strategies on user trust and reliance on AI. We conducted a mixed-methods split-plot 3x3 study, involving 30 participants, and a follow-up study with 6 participants, exploring varying text selection and code length in the use of our AIQCs system for qualitative analysis. Our results indicate that qualitative open coding should be conceptualized as a series of distinct subtasks, each with differing levels of complexity, and therefore, should be given tailored design considerations. We further observed a discrepancy between perceived and behavioral measures, and emphasized the potential challenges of under- and over-reliance on AIQCs systems. Additional design implications were also proposed for consideration.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (63)
  1. [n. d.]. Metrics. Retrieved April, 2023 from https://darel13712.github.io/rs_metrics/metrics/
  2. Power to the people: The role of humans in interactive machine learning. Ai Magazine 35, 4 (2014), 105–120.
  3. Impact of Etherpad-based Collaborative Writing Instruction on EFL Learners’ Writing Performance, Writing Self-efficacy, and Attribution: A Mixed-Method Approach. Two Quarterly Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning University of Tabriz 13, 28 (2021), 19–37.
  4. AI-Assisted Human Labeling: Batching for Efficiency without Overreliance. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW1 (2021), 1–27.
  5. A Systematic Literature Review of User Trust in AI-Enabled Systems: An HCI Perspective. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction (2022), 1–16.
  6. Being Trustworthy is Not Enough: How Untrustworthy Artificial Intelligence (AI) Can Deceive the End-Users and Gain Their Trust. (2023).
  7. Comparing grounded theory and topic modeling: Extreme divergence or unlikely convergence? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 68, 6 (2017), 1397–1410.
  8. Sarah Bebermeier and Denise Kerkhoff. 2019. Use and Impact of the Open Source Online Editor Etherpad in a Psychology Students’ Statistics Class. Psychology Teaching Review 25, 2 (2019), 30–38.
  9. Reliance and Automation for Human-AI Collaborative Data Labeling Conflict Resolution. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW2 (2022), 1–27.
  10. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77–101.
  11. To trust or to think: cognitive forcing functions can reduce overreliance on AI in AI-assisted decision-making. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW1 (2021), 1–21.
  12. Diet: Lightweight language understanding for dialogue systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.09936 (2020).
  13. Shiye Cao and Chien-Ming Huang. 2022. Understanding User Reliance on AI in Assisted Decision-Making. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW2 (2022), 1–23.
  14. Kathy Charmaz. 2014. Constructing grounded theory. sage.
  15. Using machine learning to support qualitative coding in social science: Shifting the focus to ambiguity. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS) 8, 2 (2018), 1–20.
  16. Challenges of applying machine learning to qualitative coding. In ACM SIGCHI Workshop on Human-Centered Machine Learning.
  17. Juliet Corbin and Anselm Strauss. 2014. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage publications.
  18. Machine learning and rule-based automated coding of qualitative data. proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 47, 1 (2010), 1–2.
  19. Developing and using a codebook for the analysis of interview data: An example from a professional development research project. Field methods 23, 2 (2011), 136–155.
  20. The role of trust in automation reliance. International journal of human-computer studies 58, 6 (2003), 697–718.
  21. dcbench: a benchmark for data-centric AI systems. In Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on Data Management for End-To-End Machine Learning. 1–4.
  22. Sentence-level and document-level sentiment mining for arabic texts. In 2010 IEEE international conference on data mining workshops. IEEE, 1114–1119.
  23. The exploratory labeling assistant: Mixed-initiative label curation with large document collections. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 153–164.
  24. Jessica L Feuston and Jed R Brubaker. 2021. Putting Tools in Their Place: The Role of Time and Perspective in Human-AI Collaboration for Qualitative Analysis. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (2021), 1–25.
  25. Patat: Human-ai collaborative qualitative coding with explainable interactive rule synthesis. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–19.
  26. Real-time collaborative coding in a web IDE. In Proceedings of the 24th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology. 155–164.
  27. Scholastic: Graphical Human-AI Collaboration for Inductive and Interpretive Text Analysis. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 1–12.
  28. Supporting serendipity: Opportunities and challenges for Human-AI Collaboration in qualitative analysis. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW1 (2021), 1–23.
  29. Supporting Interview Analysis with Autocoding.. In HICSS. 1–10.
  30. Will you accept an imperfect ai? exploring designs for adjusting end-user expectations of ai systems. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14.
  31. Research methods in human-computer interaction. Morgan Kaufmann.
  32. John D Lee and Katrina A See. 2004. Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human factors 46, 1 (2004), 50–80.
  33. Natural Language Processing (NLP) in qualitative public health research: a proof of concept study. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 18 (2019), 1609406919887021.
  34. Helpfulness of online product reviews as seen by consumers: Source and content features. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 17, 4 (2013), 101–136.
  35. Optimizing features in active machine learning for complex qualitative content analysis. In Proceedings of the ACL 2014 Workshop on Language Technologies and Computational Social Science. 44–48.
  36. Abstraction and interpretation during the qualitative content analysis process. International journal of nursing studies 108 (2020), 103632.
  37. Megh Marathe and Kentaro Toyama. 2018. Semi-automated coding for qualitative research: A user-centered inquiry and initial prototypes. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–12.
  38. An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of management review 20, 3 (1995), 709–734.
  39. A data-centric approach for training deep neural networks with less data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.03613 (2021).
  40. Machine learning and grounded theory method: convergence, divergence, and combination. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on supporting group work. 3–8.
  41. Laura K Nelson. 2020. Computational grounded theory: A methodological framework. Sociological Methods & Research 49, 1 (2020), 3–42.
  42. Establishing trustworthiness through algorithmic approaches to qualitative research. In International Conference on Quantitative Ethnography. Springer, 47–61.
  43. Geoff Norman. 2010. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in health sciences education 15, 5 (2010), 625–632.
  44. It’s Complicated: The Relationship between User Trust, Model Accuracy and Explanations in AI. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 29, 4 (2022), 1–33.
  45. How Accurate Does It Feel?–Human Perception of Different Types of Classification Mistakes. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13.
  46. Inquire: Large-scale early insight discovery for qualitative research. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 1562–1575.
  47. Bodystorming human-robot interactions. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 479–491.
  48. Li Qin and Sue Kong. 2015. Perceived helpfulness, perceived trustworthiness, and their impact upon social commerce users’ intention to seek shopping recommendations. Journal of Internet Commerce 14, 4 (2015), 492–508.
  49. Amy Rechkemmer and Ming Yin. 2022. When Confidence Meets Accuracy: Exploring the Effects of Multiple Performance Indicators on Trust in Machine Learning Models. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14.
  50. K Andrew R Richards and Michael A Hemphill. 2018. A practical guide to collaborative qualitative data analysis. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 37, 2 (2018), 225–231.
  51. Tim Rietz and Alexander Maedche. 2021. Cody: An AI-based system to semi-automate coding for qualitative research. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–14.
  52. Johnny Saldaña. 2021. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2021), 1–440.
  53. Trust and Reliance in XAI–Distinguishing Between Attitudinal and Behavioral Measures. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.12318 (2022).
  54. E Straws and J Korbin. 2015. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for grounded theory (E. Afshar, Trans.). Tehran: Nei publication.[In Persian] (2015).
  55. Interacting meaningfully with machine learning systems: Three experiments. International journal of human-computer studies 67, 8 (2009), 639–662.
  56. Quality metrics in recommender systems: Do we calculate metrics consistently?. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 708–713.
  57. Explanations can reduce overreliance on ai systems during decision-making. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW1 (2023), 1–38.
  58. How to evaluate trust in AI-assisted decision making? A survey of empirical methodologies. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (2021), 1–39.
  59. Eric S Vorm. 2018. Assessing demand for transparency in intelligent systems using machine learning. In 2018 Innovations in Intelligent Systems and Applications (INISTA). IEEE, 1–7.
  60. Data Collection and Quality Challenges in Deep Learning: A Data-Centric AI Perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.06409 (2021).
  61. George Wright and Peter Ayton. 1988. Decision time, subjective probability, and task difficulty. Memory & Cognition 16, 2 (1988), 176–185.
  62. Semi-automatic content analysis of qualitative data. IConference 2014 Proceedings (2014).
  63. Understanding the effect of accuracy on trust in machine learning models. In Proceedings of the 2019 chi conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–12.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now