Navigating autonomy and control in human-AI delegation: User responses to technology- versus user-invoked task allocation

Abstract

Users can increasingly delegate to information systems (IS) – that is transferring rights and responsibilities regarding certain tasks – even to the degree that IS can act autonomously (i.e., without the intervention or supervision of users). What is more, IS increasingly offer to assume the rights and responsibilities for a task not only in response to user prompts (i.e., user-invoked delegation) but also without user prompts (i.e., IS-invoked delegation). Yet, little is known about whether, how, and why users agree to delegation when they are asked by the IS in contrast to when they self-initiate the delegation. Drawing on self-affirmation theory, we investigate user acceptance of IS- versus user-invoked delegation in two complementary online experiments in software development. Our core findings reveal that IS-invoked (vs. user-invoked) delegation increases users' perceived self-threat and thus decreases their willingness to accept delegation. This threatening effect is larger the less (vs. more) the user perceives control after the potential delegation. Taken together, we uncover defensive user responses to IS-invoked delegation. Furthermore, we shed light on the underlying and moderating mechanisms representing the reasons and contextual features that explain and mitigate these defensive measures. These findings have significant implications for IS designers seeking to improve user-IS collaboration and outcomes by employing IS-invoked delegation.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 62 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.