Guidance Source Matters: How Guidance from AI, Expert, or a Group of Analysts Impacts Visual Data Preparation and Analysis
Authors
The progress in generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) has fueled AI-powered tools like co-pilots and assistants to provision better guidance, particularly during data analysis. However, research on guidance has not yet examined the perceived efficacy of the source from which guidance is offered and the impact of this source on the user's perception and usage of guidance. We ask whether users perceive all guidance sources as equal, with particular interest in three sources: (i) "AI," (ii) "human expert," and (iii) "a group of human analysts." As a benchmark, we consider a fourth source, (iv) "unattributed guidance," where guidance is provided without attribution to any source, enabling isolation of and comparison with the effects of source-specific guidance. We design a five-condition between-subjects study, with one condition for each of the four guidance sources and an additional (v) "no-guidance" condition, which serves as a baseline to evaluate the influence of any kind of guidance. We situate our study in a custom data preparation and analysis tool wherein we task users to select relevant attributes from an unfamiliar dataset to inform a business report. Depending on the assigned condition, users can request guidance, which the system then provides in the form of attribute suggestions. To ensure internal validity, we control for the quality of guidance across source-conditions. Through several metrics of usage and perception, we statistically test five preregistered hypotheses and report on additional analysis. We find that the source of guidance matters to users, but not in a manner that matches received wisdom. For instance, users utilize guidance differently at various stages of analysis, including expressing varying levels of regret, despite receiving guidance of similar quality. Notably, users in the AI condition reported both higher post-task benefit and regret. These findings strongly indicate the need to further understand how different guidance sources impact user behavior for designing effective guidance systems.
Research Questions / Practical Problems
Question signals indexed for this paper.
Research Questions
3- How do different sources of guidance (AI, human experts, human analysis teams) affect users' perception of guidance and utilization efficiency?Category: AI Trust Building and Reliability JudgmentSimilar questionsarrow_forward
- What differences exist in users' behavior and decision-making mechanisms when receiving guidance from different sources?Category: AI Trust Building and Reliability JudgmentSimilar questionsarrow_forward
- How do user trust and usage frequency differ between unmarked-source guidance and guidance with explicit source attribution?Category: AI Trust Building and Reliability JudgmentSimilar questionsarrow_forward
Practical Problems
1- Users struggle to choose which guidance sources to trust in data analysis tools.Category: AI Trust Building and Reliability JudgmentSimilar questionsarrow_forward
- 83%
"Are You Really Sure?'' Understanding the Effects of Human Self-Confidence Calibration in AI-Assisted Decision Making
CHI '24· Explainable AI (XAI) +1
- 83%
Sample, Nudge and Rank: Exploiting Interpretable GAN Controls for Exploratory Search
IUI '24· Generative AI (Text, Image, Music, Video) +2
- 71%
Re-examining Whether, Why, and How Human-AI Interaction Is Uniquely Difficult to Design
CHI '20· Generative AI (Text, Image, Music, Video) +2
- 71%
Evaluating the Interpretability of Generative Models by Interactive Reconstruction
CHI '21· Explainable AI (XAI) +2
- 71%
PaTAT: Human-AI Collaborative Qualitative Coding with Explainable Interactive Rule Synthesis
CHI '23· Explainable AI (XAI) +2
- 71%
Faulty or Ready? Handling Failures in Deep-Learning Computer Vision Models until Deployment: A Study of Practices, Challenges, and Needs
CHI '23· Explainable AI (XAI) +2
- 71%
"Should I Rely on You or the AI?" Leaders' Trust and Perceptions in Mixed Human-AI Teams
CHI '26· Human-Robot Collaboration (HRC) +2
- 71%
Do People Appropriately Rely on AI-Advice? An Analytical Review of HCI Research on Human-AI Decision-Making
CHI '26· AI-Assisted Decision-Making & Automation +2
- 71%
Invisible Saboteurs: Sycophantic LLMs Mislead Novices in Problem-Solving Tasks
CHI '26· Human-LLM Collaboration +2
- 71%
The Impact of Response Latency and Task Type on Human-LLM Interaction and Perception
CHI '26· Human-LLM Collaboration +2
Based on Jaccard similarity of research subtopics & professions (≥60%)