Let Me Explain: Impact of Personal and Impersonal Explanations on Trust in Recommender Systems
Authors
Trust in a Recommender System (RS) is crucial for its overall success. However, it remains underexplored whether users trust personal recommendation sources (i.e. other humans) more than impersonal sources (i.e. conventional RS), and, if they do, whether the perceived quality of explanation provided account for the difference. We conducted an empirical study in which we compared these two sources of recommendations and explanations. Human advisors were asked to explain movies they recommended in short texts while the RS created explanations based on item similarity. Our experiment comprised two rounds of recommending. Over both rounds the quality of explanations provided by users was assessed higher than the quality of the system's explanations. Moreover, explanation quality significantly influenced perceived recommendation quality as well as trust in the recommendation source. Consequently, we suggest that RS should provide richer explanations in order to increase their perceived recommendation quality and trustworthiness.
Research Questions / Practical Problems
Question signals indexed for this paper.
- 80%
Identifying Breakdowns in Conversational Recommender Systems using User Simulation
CUI '24· Explainable AI (XAI) +1
- 71%
A Field Test of Bandit Algorithms for Recommendations: Understanding the Validity of Assumptions on Human Preferences in Multi-armed Bandits
CHI '23· Explainable AI (XAI) +2
- 67%
The Disagreement Deconvolution: Bringing Machine Learning Performance Metrics In Line With Reality
CHI '21· Explainable AI (XAI) +1
- 67%
Improving understandability of feature contributions in model-agnostic explainable AI tools
CHI '22· Explainable AI (XAI) +1
- 67%
DeepLens: Interactive Out-of-distribution Data Detection in NLP Models
CHI '23· Explainable AI (XAI) +2
- 67%
Orbit: A Framework for Designing and Evaluating Multi-objective Rankers
IUI '25· Explainable AI (XAI) +1
Based on Jaccard similarity of research subtopics & professions (≥60%)