Information Systems Frontiers

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-022-10293-2

How Do Users Feel When They Use Artificial Intelligence for Decision

Making? A Framework for Assessing Users’ Perception
Amit Kumar Kushwaha1 · Ruchika Pharswan2 · Prashant Kumar1 · Arpan Kumar Kar1 

Accepted: 13 May 2022

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2022

Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) transits from merely adopted technology to fueling everyday decision-making systems from
medication to navigation. With this combination of AI in decision-making systems (ADMS), the present study explores
how text-based users' data from social media helps organize the users' perspectives of ADMS? To investigate our research
questions, we used a framework consisting of three phases, exploratory, confirmatory, and validatory. We applied hierarchy
clustering and topic modeling in the exploratory study, hypothesis building, and empirical analysis during the confirmatory
study and support vector machine (SVM) in the validatory study. Our findings suggest that users are primarily concerned
about the risk involved in using ADMS. Factors like accountability, self-efficacy, knowledge of ADMS individuals' attitudes
towards ADMS impact the perception of ADMS among individuals. This study's theoretical and practical implications have
great scope as ADMS is still in its elementary stage.

Keywords  Artificial Intelligence · Perceived risk · Accountability · Fairness · Trust · Machine learning

1 Introduction nature never guarantees the correctness of a particular deci-

sion (Ameen et al., 2021; Bankins et al., 2022). Today, AI is
While the inception of AI technologies accelerates, its' used to assist human specialists in making decisions under
involvement and acceptance have increased substantially. AI high-stakes situations and assumed as an undeniably sig-
applications are associated with work viability, high-valued nificant part of dynamics. However, despite its advantages,
work, and firms' decision-making dynamics, promoting better AI-based automatic decision-making is not often desirable
performance (Kushwaha & Kar, 2021; Silver, 2020). While due to significant concerns like privacy, fairness, knowledge,
algorithms can perform impressively, entire delegation to ML trust in technology, and perceived values (Behera et al., 2021;
models is not desired in many situations as their probabilistic Chatterjee et al., 2020). The decision-makers or stakeholders
must realize when to trust or distrust the AI decision-making
tendency. There is a need to identify the factors influencing
Statement of contribution: All authors are equal contributors stakeholders' ability to foster AI capabilities.
Recently, a few businesses have advanced from just tak-
* Arpan Kumar Kar
arpan.kumar.kar@gmail.com ing on AI as a cutting-edge method to even more firmly
coordinating something similar to dynamic frameworks to
Amit Kumar Kushwaha
kushwaha.amitkumar@gmail.com create profits from the speculation made while building the
in-house AI practice (Kumar et al., 2021; Li & Kettinger,
Ruchika Pharswan
ruchi1966pharswan@gmail.com 2021). With AI in the Decision-Making System (ADMS),
stakeholders' trust in the choices has been seen as risky.
Prashant Kumar
prashant@dms.iitd.ac.in AI vests higher confidence in the results of ADMS; past
progress with gut-based decision making empowers more
1
Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute faith in manual decision making. Characterizing ADMS
of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, India deeply to break down the above upheavals, the literature nar-
2
Bharti School of Telecommunications Technology & rowly describes this as a "technology-driven decision with
Management, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, no humans' involvement." This assertion further mitigates
New Delhi, India

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

the convulsions. Nevertheless, expanding the definition by
expressing: a robust framework prepared on increasing vol-
ume, variety, veracity, and real-time data fueled by the most
recent algorithms, with the adaptability of over-judge the
decisions whenever required, might give some trust back
to ADMS (Kushwaha et al., 2021a; Nicolaou & McKnight,
2006).
ADMS is currently used in various services provided
to customers, for instance: overall advertising, recommen-
dations-based search, and contextual responses (Dwivedi
et al., 2021). Also, ADMS delivers a cultural and public
effect by energizing virtual wellbeing reaction frameworks,
automated decision-making frameworks to build application
filling, detecting misinformation, support to e-administra-
tion, and the medical care area is interminable (Balakrishnan
et al., 1999; Liu et al., 2021a, b). The presence of ADMS
in the legal executive space likewise makes up for lost time
gradually, however continuously, with law and requirements
(Balmer et al., 2020). Therefore, decision-support applica-
tions should be developed not only for high performance,
safety, and fairness but also for the decision-maker to under-
stand the predictions made by the model (Enholm et al.,
2021; Shet et al., 2021).
A few research likewise attempts to uncover the reper-
cussion of ADMS results, alongside the risk-related spe-
cific domain and constraints (Dwivedi et al., 2021; Meske
& Bunde, 2022). This study additionally reveals the rate
of human involvement at each level when ADMS provides
outcomes per domain, and afterward, it assesses the worth
it can acquire. This may also facilitate building stakehold-
ers' confidence and develop some feeling of easiness toward
ADMS. Having expressed the abovementioned, much is yet
to be investigated as far as associating stakeholders' perspec-
tives of ADMS on the constructs of perceived usefulness,
risk, fairness, trust, knowledge, privacy, accountability, and
AI readiness.
We also attempt to identify the problems in using local
explanations for AI-based decision-making scenarios and
invite the research community to explore new approaches
to explainability, privacy, fairness, accountability, trust,
and knowledge for analyzing the level of stakeholder's con-
fidence in ADMS. To explore how stakeholders can become
more capable of deploying AI technologies and empower-
ing them, they must adequately understand the deployment's
main drivers to support these processes. Talking about stake-
holders, social media allows users to express their opinion,
facilitates indivisible techno-social cooperative interaction,
and encourages communal communication and social behav-
ior (Oh et al., 2015; Tiwary et al., 2021). In this study, we
consider exploring how text-based users' data from social
media helps organize the users' perspectives of ADMS?
Therefore, we put forth the following two research questions:
13
Information Systems Frontiers
RQ1: How do we collect intelligence from users’ text?
RQ2: What are factors extracted from collective intel-
ligence, and how do they influence users' perspectives
of ADMS?
For this study, we borrow literature from social sciences
and theories to understand how different factors pertinent to
the influence the confidence in adopting ADMS. We have
segmented the entire study into three phases to achieve the
study objectives. First is the exploratory phase; we per-
formed various exploratory analyses on data extracted from
the social media platform to identify stakeholders' perspec-
tives, confidence levels, and other views around the ADMS.
The second phase consists of statistical analysis. We col-
lected data from stakeholders via survey, then determined
factors impacting the users' perception of ADMS using sta-
tistical methods such as multivariate regression. The third
phase is our last phase. We validate our theoretical model
and hypothesis using a support vector machine (SVM) and
conclude the most significant factors that influence user per-
spectives of ADMS (Alahakoon et al., 2020; Bankins et al.,
2022).
The rest of the article is structured as follows: Section 2
presents the literature review on ADMS, followed by Sec-
tion 3 indicates the research methodology and framework
used for this study. Section 4 shows the result of this study,
followed by Section 5 explains a discussion consisting of
theoretical, managerial implications, and limitations of this
study. Lastly, the conclusion is presented in Section 6.
2 Literature
AI is no different from other technologies attempting to
develop automated systems, robust frameworks, and digi-
talized versions of nearly everything (Mikalef et al., 2021;
Pillai et al., 2020). AI has brought new characteristics like
smartness, cognitive, and intelligence from clinical diagno-
sis to personal support and decision making within organiza-
tions (Liu et al., 2021a, b; Votto et al., 2021). The ramifica-
tions of AI have impacted stakeholders who have created or
used its applications for economic and social benefits. Still,
assuming that AI and analytics are used ethically as ethics
pervades the whole process, from data selection to present-
ing and exploiting information (Calzarossa et al., 2010). On
top of that, algorithms running behind AI-based systems cre-
ate accountability-related issues during the decision-making
process. Besides, AI algorithms generate early solutions;
they require human interpretation, reasoning, and action to
provide accurate, valuable outputs. So, before accessing the
ADMS, first, we need to consider asking what we know so
far on individual perceptions and decision-making systems.
Secondly, how ADMS differs from any previous techniques
Information Systems Frontiers
employed for supporting decision-making. In the subsequent
section, we argue these questions and map literature with our
research questions.
2.1 User Perception of Other Decision Support
Systems
Research suggests that personal decisions making character-
istics influence perceptions about outcomes and a person's
value of a specific result. For example, system usage, deci-
sion performance, and user satisfaction (Riedel et al., 2012;
Yuthas & Young, 1998). Compatibility may never emerge
as a determining factor in the decision-making of less inven-
tive, those who do not believe in the value and complexity of
the invention. Adoption of IT for expert system applications
creates awareness and information accessibility through dif-
ferent channels. Media as determinants of user perception
while personal innovativeness as a moderator between user
perception and decision-making changes based on user
belief of the benefits, they gain from using the decision-
making system (Agarwal & Prasad, 1998) like managerial,
operation, and IT infrastructure benefits significantly change
user perception of ERP system implementation (Spathis &
Ananiadis, 2005).
Sometimes, a lack of understanding about the decision
support system makes users unwilling to take risks with
insight that they gain from the system (Foshay et al., 2007;
Gupta et al., 2022). Like business intelligence gained by
transforming raw data to provide decision support, data ana-
lytics affects the user perception, transforming further into
satisfaction and user retention (Wang, 2016). The organiza-
tion interface, where trade-off qualities categorize outcomes,
builds trustworthiness more than the traditional recom-
mendation methods. In addition, forecasting is critical for
organizational decision-making (Önkal et al., 2008; Wang
et al., 2021). So, user perception is more inclined to return
to the interface and predictive format; it can help them make
choices contingent on the forecast. Also, perceptions of ease
of use and usefulness of self-service analytics are related to
task-technology fit, compatibility, and user empowerment
(Pu & Chen, 2007).
2.2 AI in Decision Making
In this section, we discuss what we know about ADMS
and how this is different from other systems? ADMS are
automated frameworks that 1) gather data, 2) de-noise it for
usage, 3) organize it for a model, 4) pick the best model, 5)
construct the outputs, 6) penalize if the result is incorrect,
6) reward if it is correct, and 7) learn from the mistakes to
improve the next iteration of results. In the last few feedback
rounds, the whole ADMS are understood and improvised
(Kushwaha et al., 2021b). As a result, the ADMS creators
think that, while the first two stages are mechanical in terms
of data, the second half is self-learning from the feedback
loop where the socio-technical application of the outputs
is crucial. While the model approach is stored as a set of
mathematical principles that lead to the formulation of a
mathematical equation, it continually changes the weights
in these equations, which must be driven by socio-technical
implications for ADMS to be successful (Baabdullah et al.,
2021; Silver, 2020). Overall, ADMS is made up of three
components: data (which feeds the model), the model's
algorithm (which is at the heart of ADMS), and the con-
sequences of the outputs generated (self-learning). ADMS
can now be classified into three types: high manual interven-
tion at the start of data collection and decision-making at
the end of output generation, medium manual intervention
required to ensure ADMS does not produce extreme outputs
that disrupt socioeconomic or law and order in any way, and
no or minimal manual intervention required at any stage
(Alsheibani et al., 2018; Shet et al., 2021).
The level of human connection or engagement and the
domain influence the "gear and hype cycle" stage of the cur-
rent ADMS for any field. For example, the healthcare appli-
cation of ADMS, which involves no human intervention in
necessary procedures, may put stakeholders in a dread cycle.
Highly tailored adverts, suggestions, and search results, on
the other hand, may cause the same ADMS to enter a hype
cycle (Ridhwan & Hargreaves, 2021). As a result, gov-
ernmental and law enforcement uses of AMDS, including
minimal human participation, may place stakeholders in
the center of the awe and hype cycles. Knowing the present
state, drivers of the fear and hype cycles is critical for any
technology to succeed. Based on the above discussion, we
analyzed that people continuously take about the ADMS
on different channels, but the study to access those talks
is minimal. In essence, organizations cautiously adopt the
AI system for their decision-making, but their performance
assessment is less, leaving a gap or need for the study. Based
on the gap, we have formulated our first aim to access the
collective intelligence from the user surrounding the ser-
vice provided by ADMS. In the next section, we will look
for evidence of the theory's support in developing the same
viewpoint in the literature.
2.3 Personal Characteristics that Influence
the Creation of an ADMS Viewpoint
We employ some of the unique pivots of literature compo-
nents to go deeper into the causes for shaping the mentality.
The research shows that the first aspect is "understanding"
the method and domain. Suppose a government official has
specialized domain expertise and some understanding of
how the ADMS self-trains; they should be better positioned
to make educated judgments on ADM's outcomes in any
13

crisis. A doctor must know about the medical domain, simi-
lar to how an ADMS anticipating Diabetic Millitus might
utilize the assessment of margin of error they can deal with
before prescribing treatment for the patient (Li et al., 2020).
Similarly, stakeholders' perspectives on the algorithms'
heuristic nature encourage perspective building. This is
partly influenced by the individual aspect of safety regarding
the quality of the output (Aribarg & Schwartz, 2020). Aside
from comprehension and quality, another vital element that
emerges from the literature analysis is demography, namely
age. Age, as a factor, has played a significant part in deter-
mining the creation of perspective toward new technology
acceptability. Therefore, the AMDS cannot be immune to
the effects of the same. Why do humans accept or reject the
use of artificial intelligence in decision-making? A previous
study has found that when humans utilize AI as a decision-
making tool, they may adopt various attitudes and behaviors
to carry out the AI system's recommendations (Luo et al.,
2019). People's attitudes towards it will influence the recep-
tion and impression of ADMS.
If consumers' understanding of how they utilize tech-
nology is jeopardized, their fears or anxieties may prevent
them from using and embracing any comparable technol-
ogy. The ADMS user's risk in purchasing the technology
may impact the user's perspective, either directly or indi-
rectly. Because ADM combines fully or partially automated
decision-making processes in a wide range of settings, there
have been serious concerns that automatic choices like those
from recommender engines may be skewed (Sharma et al.,
2021). Several previous research has found unacceptability
and unhappiness with the employment of AI algorithms for
decision-making, making the fairness component of ADMS
even more critical to explore (Subramaniam et al., 2000).
AI approaches include some opacity, which causes fear of
failure and a sense of bad decision-making on the part of
users. When users cannot evaluate outcomes, the issue of
responsibility becomes more serious. It is critical to consider
the accountability component of ADMS to make it a depend-
able source and acquire users' trust.
The danger of utilizing the ADMS is linked to trust, either
directly or indirectly. The acceptance of any technology
requires trust, according to various studies. The higher the
level of faith, the more positive the user's impressions of the
technology are (Kumar et al., 2021). As a result, this sense
of trust can significantly impact ADMS users' perceptions.
Because ideas like ADMS combine cutting-edge technology
like AI, users must at least be conversant with these tech-
nologies' technicalities to use them (Elbanna et al., 2020;
Wendt et al., 2021). Although ADMS can be a sound system,
there is overwhelming evidence of its failure to gain accept-
ance and adoption owing to its complex design. Research
suggests that user willingness plays a critical part in form-
ing a positive picture of technology. Several characteristics,
13
Information Systems Frontiers
like perceived simplicity of use, perceived benefit, minimal
danger, and confidence in the technology, might increase
users' willingness to perceive any technology {Formatting
Citation}.
3 Research Methodology
The first objective aims to gather the intelligence from the
users' discussion about ADMS usage experience surround-
ing decision-making services. So, to extract the user discus-
sion, we have used social media data since it gives a high
volume of user discussion on each specific subject. Con-
sidering that our first and second objectives are to qualita-
tively analyze the users' conversations and link them with
the factors influencing user perception of ADMS, followed
by the third objective of establishing the relationship of
extracted factors with user perception, we have observed
a mixed method-based research design (Venkatesh et al.,
2013). Following the primary design strategies suggested by
Venkatesh et al. (2016), we formulate the methodology into
three phases (Fig. 1.). We discussed each step separately:
3.1 Phase 1. Exploratory Phase
In the first phase, we elaborate exploratory stage, where we
extract perspective around ADMS acknowledgment and
adaption from social media platforms (SMP). An explora-
tory study does not give a robust solution yet provides the
underlying foundation to understand the problem to some
better extent. We employ exploratory analysis to identify
the potential constructs. User-generated content (UGC) sur-
rounding a product or service is typically collected in the
voluble interaction on SMPs like Twitter. Hence mining the
data from Twitter helps us analyze the opinions and under-
stand the signals that could lead to theoretical constructs that
can be tested later. Its large user base and active interaction
within and between the groups help us build a proper context
for the study undertaken in the current analysis (Ridhwan
& Hargreaves, 2021). With UGC from Twitter as an input,
we employed content analysis of Social Media Analytics
(SMA).
3.1.1 Data Collection and Processing
The data collection framework consists of two modules. In
the first module, we collect the data related to ADMS from
SMP. In the second module, we collect the data using a ques-
tionnaire-based survey (detailed in Sect. 3.3) which we pre-
pare using the data from literature and exploratory studies.
The first data extraction module is built on the python toolkit
utilizing the Twitter streaming API with the results stored in
a database. The hashtags and keywords that were utilized to
Information Systems Frontiers
Fig. 1  The framework used to
analyze research questions
gather data are as follows: ''#ArtificialIntelligence,’ ''#AI,’
''#DesicionMaking,’ ''#Trust,’ ''#ADMS,’ ''#Applications,’
''#AutomedDecisionMaking,’,’ ''Automatic''. We downloaded
over one million tweets from January 2021 to May 2021.
We found many noises (e.g., non-English, hyperlinks) and
uncertainty during the initial screening of collected data,
which we removed by preprocessing (Kar, 2020).
We discovered that few users utilized hashtags midway
through sentences, which totaled sense to the sentences.
Thus, we have preserved the hashtags' word terms and
deleted the "#" character. Furthermore, a few tweets had a
lower word estimate and a higher quantity of hashtags in the
content, and the words did not offer the crucial information.
Therefore, we have eliminated them. We employed Natu-
ral Language Processing (NLP) which utilizes segmenta-
tion, tokenization, voice tagging, stop word detection and
exile, reliance parsing, and named entity identification. It
also includes removing duplicate texts, denoising, and spell-
checks. Lastly, text exploration techniques (EDA) through
topic modeling help in this scenario, so; we use several
topic-modeling methods to understand the crucial topics
from the tweet texts. We analyzed the whole process using
the NLTK and genism packages, which provide a variety of
characteristics, including updated stop words.
3.1.2 Content Analysis
Researchers have proposed different data analytics ways,
such as hashtag, word, and sentiment analysis and word
association, and inferential model validation employing
topic modeling, topic association, and polarity analysis for
theory building computationally (Kar & Dwivedi, 2020;
Ridhwan & Hargreaves, 2021). To explore the associations
and groupings of the themes arising from the content, we
use hierarchical clustering, topic modeling, sentiment analy-
sis, and summarize the material. By applying hierarchical
crusting, we extract a cluster of words that could be in the
same category without any need for a predefined cluster.
However, the problem lies in the word cluster, which some-
times does not make sense. So, for a more refined theme
selection, we employed a Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA)
(Kushwaha et al., 2021b) established topic modeling tech-
nique to identify users' unspoken themes or subjects in their
tweets regarding ADMS.
LDA is also a generative statistical method consisting of
a bag of words generated by choosing a topic mixture from
the text sample. However, the mix of words selected from
topics does not consider the order in the sentence. LDA-
based topic modeling is a machine learning (ML) approach
that is frequently utilized by academics for marketing, client
satisfaction, and segmentation purposes. The LDA model
has been used to derive market segmentation in various
studies. Customers' feedback has been collected using the
LDA model by others. They also highlighted that collecting
information from reviews using an LDA-based model is a
different but effective way to know the client better (Shet
et al., 2021). So, the LDA provides results in the form of the
topic with words associated with them. Each of these topics
represents a separate meaning which could be mapped with
the help of literature. Lastly, in the first phase, we assess
consumer sentiment and prime; intention regarding tech-
nology, goods, brands, or services; sentiment analysis is
extensively used in technology adoption, decision-making,
and customer-related literature (Kar & Kushwaha, 2021).
Research has treated sentiment as a proxy of various firm
performance parameters.
13

3.2 Phase 2: Confirmatory Phase
Secondly, we apply the confirmatory analysis, which estab-
lishes the relationship between factors and users' percep-
tion of ADMS. Besides, corroborative studies are used when
educators solve issues and test hypotheses to develop ideas
founded on facts. So, the topics from the topic modeling
of exploratory analysis need to be mapped with its close
related variable (Büschken & Allenby, 2016). For this pur-
pose, studies have suggested two methods. First, incorporate
intercoder reliability, where theme to variable mapping is
done by one author, verified by others, and tested reliability.
In the second method, a survey is designed based on the
topic and its associated word by mapping with its closest
proximity variables and selecting based on the data theme.
In this study, we employed the second method.
We have collected data via surveys during June 2021.
Profile selection and shortlisting through professional net-
working were used to choose participants in this research.
Professional SMPs such as LinkedIn were also used to select
professionals who were asked to participate in the poll. Lis-
teners of AI podcast platforms such as "AI Galore," which
provides technical mentoring and direction to stakeholders
interested in pursuing or establishing AI as a specialized
area, were another significant source used for the study.
Sending one email every day also provides mentorship to
AI system users. The listeners' samples were randomly
selected, and survey questionnaires were given out as part
of the regular mailing. Participants were informed about
data utilization for academic research in AI. Following the
reported constraint, the participants are asked questions to
assess their degree of expertise in mathematics, AI, domain,
social implications, and programming language knowledge.
Following that, the participants were given reading material
on ADMS and how the results' application might be inves-
tigated in other fields. After then, these professionals were
questioned about their thoughts on ADMS.
Following their responses to the first questions, the par-
ticipants were randomly allocated to one of four scenarios:
corporate use of ADMS, governmental or society use of
ADMS, legal and enforcement use of ADMS, and demand-
ing health care use of ADMS. These situations have impli-
cations for business, organization, law, enforcement, and
health. The approaches used by the participants were based
on three levels of vignette-experiment ideology: ADMS ver-
sus human decision X self vs. others adopting the product X
high vs. low impact with the domains indicated. The partici-
pants said the ADMS judgments were solely based on data
and algorithms, with no human input. All the participants
were given checkpoint questions to cross-verify the inputs
entered via them, the outcomes, and their robustness.
So far, we have used the qualitative research approach to
extract the variables from the text information of users' data;
13
Information Systems Frontiers
this will help us determine the context in which the users are
talking. The number of topics discovered applying the LDA
technique for multiple regression analysis is significant, and
not all topics significantly influence the dependent variable.
This is a common challenge with extensive data, where pre-
dicted multi-scale problems occur. Therefore, we went back
to the literature to see if there was any connection between
the selected variable and how the end-user may perceive it.
Usually, hypotheses are formulated before any study design
in the early stages of building the framework. However, in
social media research, the context in which users are talking
is not fixed. Data varsity is very high, so extracting the infor-
mation text content to set the variable is essential for this
research design. This phase's last step ends with establishing
the hypothesis related to user perception. Following the sub-
sequent section, we present the validation of the hypothesis.
3.3 Phase 3: Validatory Analysis
On the other hand, multiple regression analysis is typically
appropriate and free of multicollinearity effects for empiri-
cal research in content analysis methodologies (Kushwaha
et al., 2021b). In our instance, though, a few subjects had
little influence. A linear regression study investigates the
link between the predictor factors and the predicted vari-
able. The purpose is to reduce the loss function, such as
the sum of square residual, to the smallest possible value.
When the connection between predictors and predicted vari-
ables is non-linear, the non-linear technique outperforms the
linear method on more extensive datasets. When multivari-
ate linear regression algorithms were developed, only valid
components in every reliant variable were deemed momen-
tous. Because the current study is based on ADMS-based
decision-making, we implemented a system to rigorously
exclude any replies that blared doubtfully or did not connect
to decision-making (Shet et al., 2021).
Lastly, we conducted an SVM employed corroborative
analysis based on our grasping from the preceding and
exploratory investigations. In the confirmatory phase, we use
the permutation testing approach to identify the significant
constructs that impact the user's ADMS application experi-
ence, for which we use an SVM classifier. As a result of
the permutation testing approach, we now have a set of sig-
nificant factors, and now we validate the same by using the
stepwise regression analysis. Since we have high dimension-
alities in our data and many potential constructs, prune the
list. We conducted the iterative regression analysis and the
SVM to scrutinize all the possible sets of most significant
factors that impact the stakeholder's ADMS usage experi-
ence (Balmer et al., 2020). To validate the proposed hypoth-
esis in the current studies, we have analyzed the potential
relationships among the elements and their inferential influ-
ence on the ADMS usage experience (dependent variable).
Information Systems Frontiers
To obtain the most significant set of constructs, we have
used the permutation testing approach. In this technique,
random labels are assigned to the constructs, and then we
use an SVM classifier to train the model. After that, we test
the significance of each construct by using the "one left out
"cross-validation strategy. We used this procedure in itera-
tion until we separated the most significant constructs.
4 Findings
4.1 Insights from the Exploratory Phase
4.1.1 Insights from Exploratory Analysis
For the phase one study, data was collected from Twitter to
gain insights into the users' discussion surrounding ADMS.
The keywords that repeatedly appeared in the conversations.
Analyzing these keywords closely, we learned that these key-
words illustrate sentiments of users' towards ADMS. These
sentiments show various users' positive and negative per-
ceptions of the ADMS. For example, keywords like "leak,"
"identity theft," and "cyber" indicate the security concerns
of users. Moreover, keywords like "prejudicial," "bureau-
cracy," and "race" show the users' concern about the fairness
of the decision taken by ADMS. Whereas keywords like
"gender," "women," and "Asians" depict the demographic
elements. "Responsible," "principle," and "authorizations"
these keywords show the accountability concerns among
stakeholders.
Likewise, keywords like "skill," "interview," "capabil-
ity," and "expert" show some knowledge concerns of ADMS
users. Terms like "loss," "belief," and "misunderstood" show
some trust-related concerns of ADMS users. These key-
words result from users' positive or negative perceptions of
ADMS. Keywords like fear, loss, breach, and misunderstood
show some users' negative sentiments towards the ADMS;
however, expert, power, and growth kind of keywords show
some positive feelings of users. These keywords will be used
as input for developing a theoretical framework constructed
for analyzing users' perception of ADMS and hypothesis
development that will be tested in later phases.
4.1.2 Insights from Hierarchical Clustering
We have utilized the agglomerative hierarchy cluster-
ing approach to determine the latent structure within the
extracted data. The output of the hierarchical clustering is
represented in Fig. 2. In this approach, stakeholders use key-
words in general discussion over social media to make sense
of it. Terms that have a similar meaning or make sense are
hinged on the nearest branch. This process of placing terms
of similar meaning near each other sooner will form a group
or cluster of similar terms. The shorter the branch, the more
similar the words will be. For instance, terms like "leak" and
"identity theft" (in red color) are closely connected in the
nearest branch, which gives a similar sense, such as secu-
rity-related concerns. Likewise, the terms "responsible" and
"authorization" (in green color) are closely connected in the
nearest branch, which gives a similar sense such as account-
ability concern. Another example is the terms "women" and
"race" closely placed in the nearest branch, which offers a
sense of bias or targets the fairness aspect of ADMS.
Moreover, there are some constraints to using hierarchical
clustering analysis. For example, hidden structures are not
promptly considered. We have utilized the topic modeling
approach for extracting the themes. To derive the meaning
from the text data, topic modeling utilizes natural language
processing techniques. For our analysis, we used the LDA
method to extract more refined topics and associated words
(see Appendix 1 for the topic and words associated with
them). Further, following the method suggested by Büschken
and Allenby (2016), we mapped each topic with their close
related constructs. The topic to construct assignment needs
to check for reliability (Berente et al., 2019), so we verified
the mapping using a cross sectional survey to establish relia-
bility and validity of the cluster of words with the constructs
which will subsequently be used for natural language pro-
cessing based model validation. We presented the question-
naire used for the survey in Appendix 2, in which the first
item for each variable is assigned based on the results found
from topic modeling. The result of the survey indicates reli-
ability of 0.89.The objective of the survey is to establish
inter-coder reliability and face-validity to the next steps of
natural language processing for theory building using big
data analytics (Berente et al., 2019; Kar & Dwivedi, 2020).
After determining themes, we have mapped these themes to
our exploratory analysis and clustering results to assess the
constructs from the prior literature and test the correspond-
ing hypothesis.
4.2 Insight from Confirmatory Analysis
From the signal captured in phase one and analyzing
those using social media Analytics, we tracked down
some emerging keywords from the conversation around
the ADMS from various stakeholders' lenses. Contem-
plating these keywords, first, we head towards hypoth-
esis development. In this study dependent variable is the
stakeholder's ADMS perspective that directly and indi-
rectly depends upon individuals' ADMS usage experi-
ence. Thus, in this research study, we have considered
stakeholders' ADMS perspectives and emotions as a
proxy for further ADMS acceptance. We have developed
our hypotheses as follows:
13

Fig. 2  The outcome of hierarchical clustering
4.2.1 Privacy/Security
Security becomes a primary concern when using ADMS
or any technology dealing with user data extensively. Also,
with technology like AI, where the atomic work unit is
data, privacy or security must especially be taken care of
for a better user experience (Loh et al., 2021). ADMS must
include sufficient protection to be a dependable asset as
data security, privacy and risk becomes critical concerns in
digital platforms (Kar & Aswani, 2021). Since any frame-
work involving AI captures enormous amounts of data, it
is evident that users are uncertain regarding security as the
vast majority of the information comprises the user's details
(Chatterjee & Kar, 2018). The higher the technology ensures
security and privacy, the more the user utilizes it and has an
optimistic attitude (Chatterjee et al., 2021a). We broaden this
contention and propose the hypothesis as follows:
H1: There is a positive relationship between privacy/
security and users' perspective of ADMS.
13
Information Systems Frontiers
4.2.2 Perceived Risk
If technology is incapable of delivering satisfactory out-
comes, factors like risk and uncertainty might be incited,
and these factors influence the user's confidence in utilizing
that technology. If there is a risk to users' comprehension
of their utilization of the technology, their concerns or fear
might keep them from using and accepting any comparative
technology (Jöhnk et al., 2021). The risk experienced by the
ADMS user in acquiring the technology may directly or indi-
rectly influence its user's perspective (Balakrishnan et al.,
2021). Also, ADMS needs to ensure a deep level of integrity
and reliability to utilize the application and subsequently
accept it effortlessly. Reducing the risk experienced by the
user when using ADMS ingrains high trust and certainty
to accept it (Im et al., 2008). Broadening the argument that
perceived risk may unfavorably influence the user's intention
to utilize the ADMS, we present our hypothesis as follows:
H2: There is a negative relationship between perceived
risk and users' perspective of ADMS.
Information Systems Frontiers
4.2.3 Fairness
Since ADM incorporates complete or semi-automated
decision-making processes in various environments, criti-
cal concerns have been raised that automated decisions may
be biased (Baur, 2017). Several prior studies indicate unac-
ceptability and dissatisfaction regarding the use of AI algo-
rithms for decision-making, making it even more essential
to investigate the fairness aspect of ADMS. While utilizing
ADMS, standards of fairness should be preserved (Gupta
et al., 2021a). By developing an ADMS that assists users in
their decision-making process, the fair use of data assures
that it is adequate for the purpose and respects the principle
of individual autonomy. If ADMS users feel that the deci-
sions are fair, reasonable, and dependable, they are more
likely to accept the ADMS results. Therefore, it becomes
crucial to understand how AMDS influences user perception
regarding fairness (Wang et al., 2021). Here we propose our
following hypothesis around fairness:
H3: Fairness is positively associated with users' perspec-
tives of ADMS.
4.2.4 Accountability
Another primary concern when using an automated system
like ADMS is how the machine arrives at the particular deci-
sion and who is liable for the wrong decision. Unlike conven-
tional technologies, AI model algorithms used for decision-
making are highly complicated and opaque in most cases
(Mikalef & Gupta, 2021; Trocin et al., 2021). Additionally,
advanced technology like AI operates on users' data to provide
better customization and personalization services. Few prin-
ciples and methods enable users to comprehend these models'
essential workings; some of them are incomprehensible even
to developers. This opacity of AI methods sometimes creates
fear of failure and perception of users' poor decision-making
(El-Haddadeh et al., 2021). When results are not interpretable
by users, and accountability aspect runs deeper. Considering
the accountability aspect of ADMS becomes crucial to make
ADMS a reliable source and gain users' vote of confidence.
More, the technology is accountable for its deliverables; it
seems more trustworthy to users and can positively influence
the ADMS perception of the user (Gupta et al., 2021b).
H4: Accountability will have a driving relationship with
an individual's perspective of ADMS.
4.2.5 Trust
The use of AI-based decision-making is implicated with the
help of the internet. When users are acquainted with a new
technology or framework that uses the internet and advanced
technologies like AI, they will initially have an unreliable
outlook on the results of its utilization. Users would ana-
lyze how modern systems like ADMS would be dependable
and trustworthy (Gide, 1967). Trust is directly or indirectly
associated with the risk arising from using the ADMS. More
confidence naturally improves users' perception of ADMS
and its recommendations. ADMS inclines toward the most
recent technologies; lower transparency and understandabil-
ity lead to an impression of vulnerability among the ADMS
users (Nicolaou & McKnight, 2006). Various literature dem-
onstrates that trust is fundamental for the acceptance of any
technology. The higher the confidence, the better the users'
perception of the technology. Therefore, this sense of trust
can highly influence the perception of ADMS users (Araujo
et al., 2020; Chatterjee et al., 2020). So, the hypothesis sur-
rounding the perceived trust is as per the following:
H5: Trust in ADMS positively impacts an individual's
perspective of ADMS.
4.2.6 Attitude
Mapping with the three main determinants out of five main
determinants mentioned by Robey (1979) regarding volun-
tary system use is user attitude and perceptions, technical
quality of the system, and situational and personal factors.
Based on his analogy, we relate user attitude with individual
attitude towards AI technology, technical quality of system
with technical complexity as AI system relying heavily
on backend algorithms and situation and personal factor-
like user awareness with AI readiness. Various literature
on stakeholders' attitudes implies that each individual has
a positive or negative attitude towards technology (Baur,
2017). Prior research also highlighted that technologies
concerned with internet usage and users' attitude play a
crucial role in its reception (Nicolaou & McKnight, 2006).
Users foster a particular attitude towards technology due to
many reasons. For instance, users will develop an affirma-
tive attitude towards its reception if ADMS is easy to utilize
and understand, ensures high privacy, involves low risks, is
dependable, and provides appropriate solutions (Chatterjee
et al., 2021a, b). Users' attitudes about utilizing any particu-
lar technology, application, product, or brand are an equally
significant factor in deciding if an
H6: Individual's attitude will have a driving relationship
with an individual's perspective of ADMS.
4.2.7 Technological Complexity
There is supporting research indicating that new technolo-
gies effortlessly interlaced with the existing ones have more
prospects of success in acceptance and adoption (Kai-ming
13

au & Enderwick, 2000). However, advanced technologies
are personalized to serve specific domains (Wendt et al.,
2021). Complexity varies depending upon the environment
they are applied in, making it challenging to gel up with
current frameworks, jitters users' comfort, and minimizes
engagement, hence fostering a dismissive perception towards
that technology. Since concepts like ADMS incorporate the
latest technology like AI, users need to become familiar
with the technicality of these technologies to some extent,
basically to utilize them. Even though ADMS can be a pro-
ductive system, there is compelling evidence of the failure
of its acceptance and reception due to its intricate nature
(Awa et al., 2017). Consequently, while examining the users'
perception of ADMS, technical complexity turns out to be
relevant to be hypothesized and tested. Here, we propose our
following hypothesis:
H7: Technical complexity of ADMS influences an indi-
vidual's perspective of ADMS.
4.2.8 AI Readiness
Various research demonstrates that users' behavior and will-
ingness to utilize any technology can be positive or negative,
affecting the reception of technology. Individuals' enthusi-
asm toward a new technology influences their readiness to
perceive the technology (Wijnhoven, 2021). Some literature
indicates the vital role user's willingness plays in building an
impression of the technology. User readiness for perceiving
any technology can be expanded by perceived ease of use,
value, low risk, and confidence in the technology (Manfreda,
2020). However, considering the organizational scenario, AI
readiness could be associated with AI awareness, technical-
ity, and AI infrastructure (Baabdullah et al., 2021). Even
if organizations can procure infrastructure and technicality,
user awareness remains another aspect. So, the willingness
of individuals to participate in the organization development
process using a new decision support system needs to be
considered (Alsheibani et al., 2018). Since ADMS com-
prises AI, users must initially be familiar with AI and accept
it as an asset. Users' AI readiness is undoubtedly an essential
factor for identifying whether an individual is inclined to
accept and use ADMS technology and what perception it
upholds towards it (Hong et al., 2013). With this, we arrive
at our following hypothesis:
H8: AI readiness of users positively influences an indi-
vidual's perspective of ADMS.
4.2.9 Self‑Efficacy
Designed on the entire structure of extensive automated data
collection, fabricating model and self-learning loop from the
13
Information Systems Frontiers
penalty and reward of the results turned out to be the central
theme of ADMS (Chatterjee & Kar, 2018). Users of ADMS,
the data creators, unknowingly become its stakeholders and
might share more of their data without acknowledging it
(Ruggieri et al., 2021). If humans handle the data collec-
tion and usage, they might decide to overlook these to keep
an individual's privacy by interfering with the processing
pipeline. However, with no human intrusion, the information
construction of ADMS can be sufficiently wise to isolate
individual data from actual information for preparing AI
models. Prior research has shown how an individual's view
of the unique ability to secure personal data (self-efficacy
in online mode) can influence their perception of ADMS
(Wang et  al., 2021), especially AI in that structure. We
develop another hypothesis underneath:
H9: The user's self-efficacy will have a driving relation-
ship with an individual's perspective of ADMS.
4.2.10 Demographic
Prior literature on IT and technology adoption demonstrates
that the demographics of stakeholders who contribute, own,
utilize, or consume, play an essential role in acquiring new
technology (Wendt et al., 2021). We suggest that reception
of any technology fosters a vote of confidence when it is
utilized over time. Research has featured that the reception
of the technology is driven by users' perceived benefits, per-
ceived usability, and fairness. Some literature suggests that
factors, for example, age and gender that come under social
acceptability likewise impact the adoption of technology
(Sun & Jeyaraj, 2013). Although gender does not appear to
be more important in some research, age comes out to be a
significant factor in the adoption literature (Chatterjee et al.,
2021a, b). Subsequently, we hypothesize that as technology
is being adopted (in our study in the context of ADMS),
the confidence in adoption gradually increases with time,
wherein demographic factors influence users' perception of
ADMS for adoption. Along with the same lines, we propose
our following hypothesis as follows:
H10: Demographic factors will have a driving relation-
ship with an individual's perspective of ADMS.
4.2.11 Knowledge of ADMS
Previous research has demonstrated that understanding is a
fundamental factor in how stakeholders can comprehend the
value of new technology. The individual's knowledge some-
how influences how they perceive that technology, and it can
vary from user to user. Systems based on AI are generally
digital, web, or mobile-based services, which require some
degree of knowledge and experience (Li & Kettinger, 2021).
Information Systems Frontiers

Subsequently, borrowing from prior research, it becomes
crucial to count on understanding as one of the significant
attributes in framing stakeholders' perspectives. However,
the understanding of individuals may vary and have varied
implications. Some earlier literature features an understand-
ing of mathematics as critical for developing a positive atti-
tude toward AI algorithms.
In contrast, many propose domain understanding is
essential to recognize the significance and Trust (Wijn-
hoven, 2021) in AI powering ADMS. Nevertheless, some
literature also implies that the initial level of education for
end-use ADMS and the stakeholders are somehow associ-
ated with the understanding of AI. Considering the prior
literature, a good knowledge of mathematics and coding is
required when developing a perspective on algorithmic fair-
ness while making decisions (Lin & Lee, 2005). So, So,
given the mixed signals from previous literature to fabricate
Fig. 3  The theoretical framework of factors influencing the users' per-
ception of ADMS
better insights around ADMS, we propose the following
hypothesis:
H11: Technical and domain knowledge will have a
driving relationship with an individual's perspective of
ADMS.
Now try to determine the factors influencing the users'
perspective regarding ADMS and correlate them to the theo-
retical constructs identified from apprehending literature and
analyzing SMPs data in the phase represented in Fig. 3.
4.3 Empirical Validation (Insights from Phase 3)
For empirical validation, we performed statistical analysis to
determine the factors impacting users' perception of ADMS.
Firstly, we estimate the convergent validity by calculating
the average variance extracts (AVE) needs to be greater than
0.5. Table 1 indicates the mean, standard deviation, and cor-
relation between each construct. The diagonal element (in
bold) of Table1 presents the AVE value for constructs, indi-
cating all values greater than 0.5.
Secondly, we utilized multivariate linear regression to
assess the users’ perception of ADMS, and the regression
output is presented in Table 2. These factors are later used
to validate the theoretical framework, and corresponding
hypotheses are tested. From Table 2, we can analyze that
factors like privacy/security, AI readiness, and technologi-
cal complexity were insignificant as their p-value is more
than 0.05. We have identified 11 constructs and formulated
the corresponding hypothesis, out of which three were
significant.
Besides, perceived risk has significant negative influences
on users' perception with a lesser p-value, representing that
the higher the perceived risk decreases the users' perception
of ADMS. Similarly, except for fairness, all other variables

Table 1  Descriptive statistics and correlation among constructs

Variables Mean Stan. Dev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Privacy/Security (PRIV) 3.66 1.15 0.89

Perceived Risk (PER) 3.12 1.03 0.32 0.86
Fairness (FAIR) 3.54 1.04 0.29 0.21 0.87
Accountability (ACC) 3.87 1.08 0.44 0.48 0.35 0.88
Trust (TRT) 3.21 1.16 0.29 0.63 0.55 0.48 0.86
Technological complexity (TCO) 3.65 1.09 0.26 0.33 0.56 0.37 0.46 0.85
Attitude (ATT) 3.74 1.12 0.28 0.48 0.64 0.35 0.51 0.51 0.82
AI readiness (AIR) 3.24 1.08 0.27 0.57 0.36 0.51 0.65 0.48 0.25 0.87
Self-efficacy (SEF) 3.11 1.04 0.37 0.47 0.54 0.45 0.35 0.51 0.45 0.36 0.89
Demographic (DEM) 3.18 1.15 0.49 0.28 0.22 0.52 0.46 0.33 0.65 0.74 0.54 0.89
Knowledge of ADMS (KADMS) 3.40 1.16 0.65 0.61 0.52 0.61 0.45 0.25 0.36 0.48 0.46 0.74 0.85

13
 Information Systems Frontiers

Table 2  Output of inferential analysis a stepwise regression analysis to determine significant fac-

Variables Estimate Std. error p-value Result
tors out of all the factors identified in earlier phases. The
data collected had high dimensionalities and had many con-
Privacy/Security 0.0007 0.002 0.662 Insignificant structs that required pruning of data. So, to evaluate all the
Perceived risk -0.1487 0.023 0 Significant possible sets of most impacting factors, we conducted an
Fairness 0.0059 0.004 0.007 Significant iterative regression analysis and the SVM. Here, the permu-
Accountability -0.2795 0.024 0 Significant tation testing approach identifies the most valuable collec-
Trust -0.0564 0.035 0.036 Significant tion of constructs. Wherein labels are randomly assigned to
Attitude -6.6991 1.347 0 Significant the constructs, and the SVM classifier is used. After that, the
Technological complex- -0.0784 0.062 0.208 Insignificant "one left out " cross-validation strategy is used to determine
ity
the relevance of every construct in the building perspective
AI readiness 0.0004 0.002 0.795 Insignificant
of stakeholders regarding ADMS. The entire procedure is
User-specific variables
repeated until the most significant constructs are drawn out.
Self-efficacy -0.0367 0.006 0 Significant
The results of the permutation testing technique are repre-
Demographics 0.0737 0.035 0.036 Significant
sented through a box and whisker plot in Fig. 5.
Knowledge of ADMS -0.0552 0.01 0 Significant
Constant 0.1709 0.001 0
R-square 0.17
5 Discussion
Adjusted R-square 0.167

In this paper, we started by exploring how text-based users'

Fig. 4  A finalized framework of factors influencing the users' percep-
tion of ADMS
negatively influence user perception of ADMS. So, users'
understanding of AI fairness influences the perception of its
implementation in decision-making systems. On the other
hand, under user-specific variables, except demographic,
both self-efficacy and knowledge of ADMS have a negative
and significant relationship with users' perception of ADMS.
Further, we present the final developed framework in Fig. 4.
4.3.1 Robustness Checks
We tested our formulated hypothesis in the third phase and
validated the constructed theoretical framework. We perform
data from social media helps organize the users' perspec-
tives of ADMS? Now. This high-level question consists of
two objectives: first, finding the method to analyze the text-
based social media data to extract collective intelligence
from users or stakeholders of the understudied domain; and
second, finding the users' perspective on ADMS. The cur-
rent study explores two research questions, starting with
determining the most significant factors impacting users'
perspectives towards ADMS by exploring prior literature
and analyzing stakeholders' perceptions from real-time
data. We developed a framework of multiple analyses in
different phases to investigate these questions. Firstly, we
explained the exploratory phase, wherein we collected SMP
data and analyzed it using various SMA techniques to get
a hunch about the users' sentiments towards ADMS. So,
using the insights from exploratory study and literature,
we uncovered discussion surrounding ADMS and variables
associated with users' perception of ADMS. Secondly, we
collected data via surveys and conducted inferential statisti-
cal analysis to get a little clear view of users' perspectives
regarding ADMS and developed a theoretical framework
consisting of 11 constructs and formulated their corre-
sponding hypotheses.
Moreover, the confirmatory phase helped us analyze
our second and third aim of exploring the nature between
extracted variables and users' perception of ADMS. Lastly,
we tested our hypothesis using linear regression and robust-
ness using stepwise linear regression and the SVM tech-
nique. Our study verifies existing research while uncovering
some additional findings.

13
Information Systems Frontiers
Fig. 5  Constructs' significance
testing using SVM
We first found that fairness directly influences users' per-
ception of ADMS, even the regulatory and legislative bodies
are increasing the demand for fairness and transparency in
the algorithm (Dwivedi et al., 2021). So, due to the heavy
reliance on the black-box algorithm, the system's fairness
and accountability of the overall design also come into the
picture, which could be enhanced by providing human-inter-
pretative and meaningful arguments (Kim et al., 2020). Con-
sequently, our result demonstrates the influence of account-
ability on users' perception of ADMS. Father, perceived
risk and trust hurt the user's perception of ADMS, which
supports the literature (Vimalkumar et al., 2021), indicating
the user who considers risk and skepticism of accepting AI
shows a lower level of perception in accepting the AI-based
decision in their business functionality.
Surprisingly, despite ADMS as a recent technology,
technological complexity and AI readiness significantly
influence users' perceptions. Instead of how complex and
handling the system is, decision-makers are more interested
in the accountability and fairness of results provided by
ADMS. Moving to decision makers' specific parameters,
self-efficacy; and prior knowledge of AMDS affect the
acceptance of AI, as solely relying on decisions made by
technology contradicts their intent and tendency to acquire
knowledge, which is also similar to Erskine et al. (2019)
indication of the insignificant effect of users with high self-
efficacy on task technology fit.
5.1 Theoretical Implications
The current study has two folds theoretical implications.
First, this study makes a theoretical contribution to the nas-
cent initiative of ADMS, exploring the factors influencing
the perception and reception of ADMS. We have also aug-
mented the theoretical understanding of the emerging factors
like fairness, accountability, and perceived risk in the recep-
tion of ADMS. The current study determined the factors
building and breaking users' perception of ADMS. Much
existing literature on technology adoption highlighted that
factors like risk, security, expertise, trust, and demograph-
ics are important factors influencing the adoption of any
technology (Dwivedi et al., 2021; Vimalkumar et al., 2021).
However, very little literature featured factors like fairness,
AI readiness, and accountability in ADMS. Since the ADMS
initiative is still at its nascent stage, various factors are yet to
be explored for the successful reception of ADMS.
Also, this study makes a valuable methodological con-
tribution by providing a framework (see Fig. 1.) consist-
ing of an analysis approach using survey and SMP data, as
the idea is to provide the solution to deal with unstructured
text data. The framework employs hierarchical clustering
and an LDA-based topic modeling approach to extract top-
ics, sentiment analysis, and statistical analysis to evalu-
ate the impact-assessment relationship between exacted
and dependent variables. However, past studies have used
13

a similar framework (Kushwaha et al., 2021b). Still, their
topic validation approach is tested using intercoder reliabil-
ity, which leaves the topic to variables assignment sole in the
hand of investigating author. So, extracting topics from SMP
data and validating the topics to variables relationship using
surveys can help scholars understand the ADMS better, and
its subsequent outcomes are reliable.
5.2 Practical Implications
This study has significant practical implications since
ADMS is still nascent (Enholm et al., 2021). The results
and findings exhibit the critical factors impacting the users'
perspective regarding the ADMS, affecting its receptions.
Further it provides ADMS developers insights to develop
better AI-based automated decision-making systems by
looking into the factors that hampers the users' percep-
tion of ADMS, which is a significant challenge (Meske &
Bunde, 2022; Motorny et al., 2021). The current research
can also provide some inferences to the firms or industries
trying to automate their decision-making system regarding
what capabilities they require and what factors they should
focus on. Providers or firms and ADMS users can reference
this study to perceive the notion of ADMS. Our study's
findings depict that factors like accountability, perceived
risk, knowledge of ADMS, individuals' attitude, self-effi-
cacy, and demographics impact the individuals' perspective
of ADMS the most. Therefore, the current study can be a
good reference source when determining the factors influ-
encing individuals' perception of ADMS, hence its overall
reception among users.
5.3 Limitation and Future Scope
Since ADMS employed in many sectors and gradually
becoming part of what businesses perceive and reflect. This
study tries to determine the factors, including the users'
perceptions regarding the ADMS. To achieve this, we per-
formed various analyses; in one, we collected data from
SMP and analyzed it using SMA techniques. On the other,
we collected data from a survey and statistically analyzed
it. We tested our hypothesis and validated our developed
framework using a combination of stepwise regression and
machine learning classifier SVM. However, this study has
some limitations. We have collected data either from the
SMP or from participants familiar with the ADMS; in both
cases, users who are not tech-savvy and are not familiar with
AI or ADMS are left out. Therefore, this study is based on
users with the technology and leaves a scope of research.
In the current study, we have identified only 11 factors
13
Information Systems Frontiers
influencing the users' perception of ADMS, but ADMS is
still in its developing stage. There can emerge many more
factors gradually that can be addressed in future research.
While moving beyond the descriptive analytics process,
very few approaches are available that could use social
media text-based data for empirical validation purposes. In
this context, very few have indicated the process of map-
ping the variable relation with the dependent variable in a
structural form (Liu et al., 2021a, b). Due to this limitation,
we currently only looked for the direct effect of all those
extracted variables from the descriptive and topic modeling
analysis for empirical validation purposes. We have not con-
sidered this paper's mediation or indirect effect and kept it
as a future research direction. We have updated the limita-
tion of the report by incorporating this shortcoming, which
could be potential research for future researchers on how
we could move beyond direct effect to overall, indirect, or
mediation effect.
6 Conclusion
The current study tries to discover the factors impacting
users' perspectives based on social media and survey data
of ADMS users on Twitter. A robust research model is
proposed, where the entire model is segmented into three
phases. The first phase performs an exploratory analysis of
social media data users and discusses ADMS using SMA.
In the second phase, the statistical model analyzes the data
around users' perspectives regarding the AMDS collected
via surveys. A theoretical framework is then developed by
exploring the prior literature and using exploratory and
statistical analysis results. Factors like privacy/security,
perceived risk, knowledge of ADMS, users' attitudes, fair-
ness, Accountability, Trust, self-efficacy, AI readiness, and
demographic factors are highlighted. In the last phase, after
validating the framework and testing the hypothesis around
these factors via a machine learning classifier, factors like
perceived risk, users' attitude, accountability, self-efficacy,
and demographic factors were the most impacting factors in
deriving the users' perception of ADMS. Since the ADMS
is an emerging concept, this study is more relevant to rec-
ognizing the factors influencing users' perception of ADMS
and resolving the critical issues of ADMS reception among
stakeholders.
 Information Systems Frontiers

Appendix 2 Questionnaire used

consciousness
for construct measures

AIemotion
caucasian
Theme11

synthetic
reactive

AIsoul
aware
know
black
asian
In this questionnaire, ADMS is the acronym for Artificial
Intelligence in decision-making systems. Kindly provide
your rating between 1 and 5, where 1 represents least sig-

installation

prejudicial

penalising
frequency
Theme10 nificant and 5 is highly significant.

version

women
gender

loan

men
race
Constructs Description Items Rate
between

development
1–5

algorithms
computing
statistics

backend
Theme9

teachers

Privacy/security Privacy/safety On what scale do

set-up
intent
Table 3  Table presenting the topic with their associated words, which is used to map with variables and circulated among respondents for their response

large
is associated you think words

UI
with users' like "safe-guard,
concern about identity, access,
representative

their personal, unauthor-

performing

historical inputs ized, privacy,

affectivity
capacity
Theme8

or privacy being confidential,

breach
strong

robots
social
belief

exposed while non-disclosure,

task

ML models unprotected,
are built, and threat, spams"
transparency

the individual are in users'

dimensions
judgments

reliability

working on the text/comments

diagnosis
Theme7

actions

worthy

model could associated with

safety
peers
harm

use it privacy/security
of using ADMS
Perceived risk Perceived risk On what scale do
mistreatment

stakeholders
justification

indicates the you think words

responsible

intentions

user's concern like "volatility,

Theme6

explain
control
agreed

wrong
biases

of risk associ- loss, touch, vio-

ated with the lations, repeti-
use of ADMS tive, superintel-
in their plan- ligence, safety,
un-restricted

ning. Taking unwittingly,

principles
persistent
blogspot
Theme5

help from the surefire, estab-

concept
generic
Cloud

salary

verify

model owner lish" is in users'

eval

makes the user text/comments

confident about associated with
the risk associ- perceived risk
bureaucracy

substitution

ated with using of using ADMS

Theme4

delivery
service

ADMS in their
hours
SLA

slow
time
rate

decision-making
iot

Fairness Fairness repre- On what scale do

sents the pro- you think words
machine-vision

cess for making like "simulation,

specialization
intelligence

fair decisions intelligence,

simulation

interviews
AI_salary
processes
confused
Theme3

and indicates processes,

speech

that users’ cer- confused, AI_

fear

tainty about the salary, speech,

use of ADMS machine-vision,
has no bias interviews, fear,
super intelligence

over quarterly/ specialization"

annual business is in users' text/
unwittingly
violations
repetative

plans, and it comments asso-

volatility

establish
Theme2

surefire

may impact the ciated with the

safety
touch
loss

business fairness of using

ADMS
Appendix 1

non-disclosure
unauthorized

confidential

unprotected
safe-guard
Table 3

Theme1

identity

privacy
access

spams
threat

13
 Information Systems Frontiers

Constructs Description Items Rate Constructs Description Items Rate

between between
1–5 1–5
Accountability Accountability On what scale do Attitude Attitude indicates On what scale do
indicates the you think words users' felling you think words
ability to take like "biases, or opinion of like "caucasian,
responsibility, mistreatment, using ADMS black, asian,
decide an action agreed, respon- for business reactive, aware,
plan, and be sible, control, functionalities. know, con-
accountable for explain, wrong, Like it is a wise sciousness, syn-
action. Using justification, and good idea to thetic, AIsoul,
ADMS, users stakeholders, use ADMS AIemotion" are
need a consider- intentions" are in users' text/
able opportunity in users' text/ comments asso-
or independ- comments asso- ciated with the
ence in making ciated with the attitude toward
quarterly/annual accountability using ADMS
business plans of using ADMS AI readiness AI readiness rep- On what scale do
and have signifi- resents the steps you think words
cant autonomy or principles to like "Cloud,
in determining collect informa- blogspot, sal-
Trust Trust indicates On what scale do tion about ary, generic,
users' trust in you think words the system, concept, un-
the decision like "actions, procedure, and restricted, eval,
made by AI. judgments, equipment so verify, persis-
Like, using diagnosis, that it can be tent, principles"
ADMS makes peers, harm, accessible in are in users'
it easier to safety, worthy, the future. Like, text/comments
have faith in reliability, Users intend to associated with
quarterly/annual transparency, use ADMS for AI readiness to
business plans dimensions" are future business use ADMS
in users' text/ plan activities
comments asso- Self-efficacy Self-efficacy indi- On what scale
ciated with the cates individual do you think
trust of using belief to execute words like
ADMS the task con- "representative,
Technological Technological On what scale do fidently. Like, breach, strong,
complexity complexity you think words users’ belief belief, capacity,
assesses the like "bureau- in the require- performing,
required tech- cracy, service, ment of strong task, affectivity,
nological level delivery, rate, confidence social, robots"
for the design, SLA, time, and behavioral are in users'
manufacturing, substitution, intention to run text/comments
and operation hours, slow, and use ADMS associated with
of the ADMS. iot" are in users' self-efficacy of
This construct text/comments using ADMS
indicates users’ associated with Demographic Demographic On what scale do
indication of the technologi- represents users you think words
ease of use cal complexity experience and like "installa-
and skillful- of using ADMS opportunities tion, version,
ness in system till time they frequency,
operation during get, in decision gender, preju-
decision making making dicial, race,
loan, penalizing,
women, men"
are in users'
text/comments
associated with
the demo-
graphic of using
ADMS

13
Information Systems Frontiers

Baabdullah, A. M., Alalwan, A. A., Slade, E. L., Raman, R., & Kha-
Constructs Description Items Rate
tatneh, K. F. (2021). SMEs and artificial intelligence (AI): Ante-
between
cedents and consequences of AI-based B2B practices. Industrial
1–5
Marketing Management, 98, 255–270. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
Knowledge of Knowledge On what scale do indma​rman.​2021.​09.​003
ADMS about ADMS you think words Balakrishnan, A., Kumara, S. R. T., & Sundaresan, S. (1999). Manufac-
represents the like "teachers, turing in the digital age: Exploiting information technologies for
users knowledge statistics, intent, product realization. Information Systems Frontiers, 1(1), 25–50.
surrounding large, comput- https://​doi.​org/​10.​1023/A:​10100​12712​144
ADMS internal ing, algorithms, Balakrishnan, J., Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L., & Boy, F. (2021). Ena-
algorithm and development, blers and inhibitors of AI-Powered voice assistants: A dual-factor
operational UI, backend, approach by integrating the status quo bias and technology accept-
procedure set-up" are ance model. Information Systems Frontiers. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
in users' text/ 1007/​s10796-​021-​10203-y
comments Balmer, R. E., Levin, S. L., & Schmidt, S. (2020). Artificial intelligence
associated with applications in telecommunications and other network industries.
knowledge of Telecommunications Policy, 44(6), 101977. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
ADMS 1016/j.​telpol.​2020.​101977
Bankins, S., Formosa, P., Griep, Y., & Richards, D. (2022). AI decision
Other items except these captured the user’s information including making with dignity? Contrasting workers’ justice perceptions of
their profession details mentioned on their profile human and AI decision making in a human resource management
context. Information Systems Frontiers. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10796-​021-​10223-8
Baur, A. W. (2017). Harnessing the social web to enhance insights into
Author Contributions  All authors have contributed equally, and all people’s opinions in business, government and public administra-
contributors have been included as authors. tion. Information Systems Frontiers, 19(2), 231–251. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s10796-​016-​9681-7
Behera, R. K., Bala, P. K., & Ray, A. (2021). Cognitive chatbot for
Declarations  personalised contextual customer service: Behind the scene and
beyond the hype. Information Systems Frontiers, 2. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/​
Conflict of Interests  The authors have no conflict of interests to de- 10.​1007/​s10796-​021-​10168-y
clare. Berente, N., Seidel, S., & Safadi, H. (2019). Research commentary—
data-driven computationally intensive theory development. Infor-
mation Systems Research, 30(1), 50–64. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1287/​
isre.​2018.​0774
References Büschken, J., & Allenby, G. M. (2016). Sentence-based text analysis
for customer reviews. Marketing Science, 35(6), 953–975. https://​
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1998). The antecedents and consequents of doi.​org/​10.​1287/​mksc.​2016.​0993
user perceptions in information technology adoption. Decision Calzarossa, M. C., De Lotto, I., & Rogerson, S. (2010). Ethics and
Support Systems, 22(1), 15–29. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0167-​ information systems — Guest editors’ introduction. Informa-
9236(97)​00006-7 tion Systems Frontiers, 12(4), 357–359. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
Alahakoon, D., Nawaratne, R., Xu, Y., De Silva, D., Sivarajah, U., & s10796-​009-​9198-4
Gupta, B. (2020). Self-building artificial intelligence and machine Chatterjee, S., & Kar, A. K. (2018). Effects of successful adoption of
learning to empower big data analytics in smart cities. Information information technology enabled services in proposed smart cities
Systems Frontiers. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10796-​020-​10056-x of India: From user experience perspective. Journal of Science
Alsheibani, S., Cheung, Y., & Messom, C. (2018). Artificial Intel- and Technology Policy Management, 9(2), 189–209. https://​doi.​
ligence Adoption: AI-readiness at Firm-Level. PACIS 2018 Pro- org/​10.​1108/​JSTPM-​03-​2017-​0008
ceedings. 37.  https://​aisel.​aisnet.​org/​pacis​2018/​37. Accessed 22 Chatterjee, S., Ghosh, S. K., Chaudhuri, R., & Chaudhuri, S. (2020).
Oct 2021 Adoption of AI-integrated CRM system by Indian industry: From
Ameen, N., Tarhini, A., Reppel, A., & Anand, A. (2021). Customer security and privacy perspective. Information and Computer Secu-
experiences in the age of artificial intelligence. Computers in rity. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​ICS-​02-​2019-​0029
Human Behavior, 114(August 2020), 106548. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ Chatterjee, S., Chaudhuri, R., & Vrontis, D. (2021a). Usage intention
1016/j.​chb.​2020.​106548 of social robots for domestic purpose: From security, privacy, and
Araujo, T., Helberger, N., Kruikemeier, S., & de Vreese, C. H. (2020). legal perspectives. Information Systems Frontiers. https://​doi.​org/​
In AI we trust? Perceptions about automated decision-making by 10.​1007/​s10796-​021-​10197-7
artificial intelligence. AI and Society, 35(3), 611–623. https://​doi.​ Chatterjee, S., Rana, N. P., Khorana, S., Mikalef, P., & Sharma, A.
org/​10.​1007/​s00146-​019-​00931-w (2021b). Assessing Organizational Users' Intentions and Behav-
Aribarg, A., & Schwartz, E. M. (2020). Native advertising in online ior to AI Integrated CRM Systems: a Meta-UTAUT Approach.
news: Trade-offs among clicks, brand recognition, and website Information Systems Frontiers, (7491). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
trustworthiness. Journal of Marketing Research, 57(1), 20–34. s10796-​021-​10181-1
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​00222​43719​879711 Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L., Ismagilova, E., Aarts, G., Coombs, C.,
Awa, H. O., Ojiabo, O. U., & Orokor, L. E. (2017). Integrated technol- Crick, T., & Williams, M. D. (2021). Artificial Intelligence (AI):
ogy-organization-environment (T-O-E) taxonomies for technology Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportu-
adoption. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 30(6), nities, and agenda for research, practice and policy. International
893–921. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​JEIM-​03-​2016-​0079 Journal of Information Management, 57(August 2019), 101994.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijinf​omgt.​2019.​08.​002

13

Elbanna, A., Dwivedi, Y., Bunker, D., & Wastell, D. (2020). The
search for smartness in working, living and organising: Beyond
the “Technomagic”: Editorial for special issue of information sys-
tems frontiers. Information Systems Frontiers, 22(2), 275–280.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10796-​020-​10013-8
El-Haddadeh, R., Fadlalla, A., & Hindi, N. M. (2021). Is there a place
for responsible artificial intelligence in pandemics? A tale of two
countries. Information Systems Frontiers. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 007/​
s10796-​021-​10140-w
Enholm, I. M., Papagiannidis, E., Mikalef, P., & Krogstie, J.
(2021). Artificial intelligence and business value: A literature
review. Information Systems Frontiers. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10796-​021-​10186-w
Erskine, M. A., Khojah, M., & McDaniel, A. E. (2019). Location selec-
tion using heat maps: Relative advantage, task-technology fit, and
decision-making performance. Computers in Human Behavior,
101, 151–162. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​chb.​2019.​07.​014
Foshay, N., Mukherjee, A., & Taylor, A. (2007). Does data warehouse
end-user metadata add value? Communications of the ACM,
50(11), 70–77. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1145/​12977​97.​12978​00
Gide, A. (1967). Building trust in artificial intelligence. Angewandte
Chemie International Edition, 6(11), 951–952., 72(1), 5–24.
Gupta, M., Parra, C. M., & Dennehy, D. (2021a). Questioning racial
and gender bias in AI-based recommendations: Do espoused
national cultural values matter? Information Systems Frontiers.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10796-​021-​10156-2
Gupta, S., Kamboj, S., & Bag, S. (2021b). Role of risks in the develop-
ment of responsible artificial intelligence in the digital healthcare
domain. Information Systems Frontiers. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10796-​021-​10174-0
Gupta, S., Modgil, S., Bhattacharyya, S., & Bose, I. (2022). Artificial
intelligence for decision support systems in the field of opera-
tions research: Review and future scope of research. Annals of
Operations Research, 308(1–2), 215–274. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 007/​
s10479-​020-​03856-6
Hong, Y. H., Teh, B. H., Vinayan, G., Soh, C. H., Khan, N., & Ong, T.
S. (2013). Investigating the Factors Influence Adoption of Internet
Banking in Malaysia: Adopters Perspective. International Journal
of Business and Management, 8(19). https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.5​ 539/i​ jbm.​
v8n19​p24
Im, I., Kim, Y., & Han, H. J. (2008). The effects of perceived risk and
technology type on users’ acceptance of technologies. Informa-
tion and Management, 45(1), 1–9. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​im.​
2007.​03.​005
Jöhnk, J., Weißert, M., & Wyrtki, K. (2021). Ready or Not, AI
Comes— An interview study of organizational AI readiness fac-
tors. Business and Information Systems Engineering, 63(1), 5–20.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12599-​020-​00676-7
Kai-ming au, A., & Enderwick, P. (2000). A cognitive model on atti-
tude towards technology adoption. Journal of Managerial Psy-
chology, 15(4), 266–282. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​02683​94001​
03309​57
Kar, A. K. (2020). What affects usage satisfaction in mobile payments?
Modelling user generated content to develop the “Digital service
usage satisfaction model.” Information Systems Frontiers. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10796-​020-​10045-0
Kar, A. K., & Aswani, R. (2021). How to differentiate propagators of
information and misinformation–Insights from social media ana-
lytics based on bio-inspired computing. Journal of Information
and Optimization Sciences, 42(6), 1307–1335. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1080/​02522​667.​2021.​18801​47
Kar, A. K., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2020). Theory building with big data-
driven research–Moving away from the “What” towards the
“Why.” International Journal of Information Management, 54,
102205. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijinf​omgt.​2020.​102205
13
Information Systems Frontiers
Kar, A. K., & Kushwaha, A. K. (2021). Facilitators and barriers of arti-
ficial intelligence adoption in business – Insights from opinions
using big data analytics. Information Systems Frontiers. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10796-​021-​10219-4
Kim, B., Park, J., & Suh, J. (2020). Transparency and accountability
in AI decision support: Explaining and visualizing convolutional
neural networks for text information. Decision Support Systems,
134, 113302. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​dss.​2020.​113302
Kumar, P., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Anand, A. (2021). Responsible Artifi-
cial Intelligence (AI) for value formation and market performance
in healthcare: The mediating role of patient’s cognitive engage-
ment. Information Systems Frontiers. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10796-​021-​10136-6
Kushwaha, A. K., & Kar, A. K. (2021). MarkBot – A language
model-driven chatbot for interactive marketing in post-modern
world. Information Systems Frontiers. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10796-​021-​10184-y
Kushwaha, A. K., Kar, A. K., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2021a). Applica-
tions of big data in emerging management disciplines: A literature
review using text mining. International Journal of Information
Management Data Insights, 1(2), 100017. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​jjimei.​2021.​100017
Kushwaha, A. K., Kumar, P., & Kar, A. K. (2021b). What impacts
customer experience for B2B enterprises on using AI-enabled
chatbots? Insights from Big data analytics. Industrial Marketing
Management, 98(September), 207–221. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
indma​rman.​2021.​08.​011
Li, Y., & Kettinger, W. J. (2021). Testing the relationship between
information and knowledge in computer-aided decision-mak-
ing. Information Systems Frontiers. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10796-​021-​10205-w
Li, J., Huang, J., Zheng, L., & Li, X. (2020). Application of artificial
intelligence in diabetes education and management: present status
and promising prospect. Frontiers in Public Health, 8, 173.https://​
doi.​org/​10.​3389/​fpubh.​2020.​00173
Lin, H. F., & Lee, G. G. (2005). Impact of organizational learning
and knowledge management factors on e-business adoption. Man-
agement Decision, 43(2), 171–188. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 108/0​ 0251​
74051​05819​02
Liu, F., Lai, K.-H., Wu, J., & Duan, W. (2021a). Listening to online
reviews: A mixed-methods investigation of customer experience
in the sharing economy. Decision Support Systems, 149, 113609.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​dss.​2021.​113609
Liu, R., Gupta, S., & Patel, P. (2021b). The application of the prin-
ciples of responsible AI on social media marketing for digital
health. Information Systems Frontiers. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10796-​021-​10191-z
Loh, X.-K., Lee, V.-H., Loh, X.-M., Tan, G. W.-H., Ooi, K.-B., &
Dwivedi, Y. K. (2021). The dark side of mobile learning via
social media: How bad can it get? Information Systems Frontiers,
(0123456789). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10796-​021-​10202-z
Luo, X., Tong, S., Fang, Z., & Qu, Z. (2019). Frontiers: Machines vs.
humans: The impact of artificial intelligence chatbot disclosure on
customer purchases. Marketing Science, 38(6), 937–947. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1287/​mksc.​2019.​1192
Manfreda, A. (2020). Smart city adoption: An interplay of construc-
tive and adverse factors. Lecture Notes in Business Information
Processing, pp. 179–192. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-3-​030-​
44322-1_​14
Meske, C., & Bunde, E. (2022). Design principles for user interfaces in
AI-Based decision support systems: The case of explainable hate
speech detection. Information Systems Frontiers. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1007/​s10796-​021-​10234-5
Mikalef, P., Lemmer, K., Schaefer, C., Ylinen, M., Fjørtoft, S. O.,
Torvatn, H. Y., … Niehaves, B. (2021b). Enabling AI capabilities
in government agencies: A study of determinants for European
Information Systems Frontiers
municipalities. Government Information Quarterly, (June). https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​giq.​2021.​101596
Mikalef, P., & Gupta, M. (2021). Artificial intelligence capability:
Conceptualization, measurement calibration, and empirical study
on its impact on organizational creativity and firm performance.
Information and Management, 58(3), 103434. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​im.​2021.​103434
Motorny, S., Sarnikar, S., & Noteboom, C. (2021). Design of an intel-
ligent patient decision aid based on individual decision-making
styles and information need preferences. Information Systems
Frontiers. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10796-​021-​10125-9
Nicolaou, A. I., & McKnight, D. H. (2006). Perceived information
quality in data exchanges: Effects on risk, trust, and intention to
use. Information Systems Research, 17(4), 332–351. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1287/​isre.​1060.​0103
Oh, O., Eom, C., & Rao, H. R. (2015). Research note —role of social
media in social change: An analysis of collective sense making
during the 2011 Egypt revolution. Information Systems Research,
26(1), 210–223. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1287/​isre.​2015.​0565
Önkal, D., Gönül, M. S., & Lawrence, M. (2008). Judgmental adjust-
ments of previously adjusted forecasts. Decision Sciences, 39(2),
213–238. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1540-​5915.​2008.​00190.x
Pillai, R., Sivathanu, B., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2020). Shopping inten-
tion at AI-powered automated retail stores (AIPARS). Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 57, 102207. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​jretc​onser.​2020.​102207
Pu, P., & Chen, L. (2007). Trust-inspiring explanation interfaces for
recommender systems. Knowledge-Based Systems, 20(6), 542–
556. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​knosys.​2007.​04.​004
Ridhwan, K. M., & Hargreaves, C. A. (2021). Leveraging Twitter data
to understand public sentiment for the COVID-19 outbreak in
Singapore. International Journal of Information Management
Data Insights, 1(2), 100021. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jjimei.​
2021.​100021
Riedel, R., Wiers, V., & Fransoo, J. C. (2012). Modelling dynamics in
decision support systems. Behaviour & Information Technology,
31(9), 927–941. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​01449​29X.​2010.​535969
Robey, D. (1979). User attitudes and management information system
use. Academy of management Journal, 22(3), 527–538. 255742.
Ruggieri, S., Bonfanti, R. C., Passanisi, A., Pace, U., & Schimmenti,
A. (2021). Electronic surveillance in the couple: The role of
self-efficacy and commitment. Computers in Human Behavior,
114(August 2020), 106577. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​chb.​2020.​
106577
Sharma, S., Rana, V., & Kumar, V. (2021). Deep learning based seman-
tic personalized recommendation system. International Journal of
Information Management Data Insights, 1(2), 100028.
Shet, S. V., Poddar, T., Wamba Samuel, F., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2021).
Examining the determinants of successful adoption of data analyt-
ics in human resource management – A framework for implica-
tions. Journal of Business Research, 131(August 2020), 311–326.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jbusr​es.​2021.​03.​054
Silver, S. D. (2020). Dynamics of negative evaluations in the informa-
tion exchange of interactive decision-making teams: Advancing
the design of technology-augmented GDSS. Information Systems
Frontiers. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10796-​020-​10063-y
Spathis, C., & Ananiadis, J. (2005). Assessing the benefits of using an
enterprise system in accounting information and management.
Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 18(2), 195–210.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​17410​39051​05799​18
Subramaniam, C., Shaw, M. J., & Gardner, D. M. (2000). Product mar-
keting and channel management in electronic commerce. Informa-
tion Systems Frontiers, 1(4), 363–378. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1023/A:​
10100​61924​822
Sun, Y., & Jeyaraj, A. (2013). Information technology adoption and
continuance: A longitudinal study of individuals’ behavioral
intentions. Information & Management, 50(7), 457–465. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​im.​2013.​07.​005.
Tiwary, N. K., Kumar, R. K., Sarraf, S., Kumar, P., & Rana, N. P.
(2021). Impact assessment of social media usage in B2B mar-
keting: A review of the literature and a way forward. Journal of
Business Research, 131, 121–139. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jbusr​
es.​2021.​03.​028
Trocin, C., Mikalef, P., Papamitsiou, Z., & Conboy, K. (2021). Respon-
sible AI for digital health: A synthesis and a research agenda.
Information Systems Frontiers, (May). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10796-​021-​10146-4
Venkatesh, V., Brown, S., & Bala, H. (2013). Bridging the qualitative-
quantitative divide: Guidelines for conducting mixed methods
research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 37(1), 21–54.
Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., & Sullivan, Y. W. (2016). Guidelines for
conducting mixed-methods research: An extension and illustra-
tion. Journal of the Association of Information Systems, 17(7),
435–495.
Vimalkumar, M., Sharma, S. K., Singh, J. B., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2021).
“Okay google, what about my privacy?”: User’s privacy percep-
tions and acceptance of voice based digital assistants. Computers
in Human Behavior, 120(October 2020), 106763. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​chb.​2021.​106763
Votto, A. M., Valecha, R., Najafirad, P., & Rao, H. R. (2021). Artificial
intelligence in tactical human resource management: A systematic
literature review. International Journal of Information Manage-
ment Data Insights, 1(2), 100047.
Wang, C. H. (2016). A novel approach to conduct the importance-satis-
faction analysis for acquiring typical user groups in business-intel-
ligence systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 673–681.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​chb.​2015.​08.​014
Wang, W., Chen, L., Xiong, M., & Wang, Y. (2021). Accelerating AI
adoption with responsible AI signals and employee engagement
mechanisms in health care. Information Systems Frontiers. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10796-​021-​10154-4
Wendt, C., Adam, M., Benlian, A., & Kraus, S. (2021). Let's connect
to keep the distance: How SMEs leverage information and com-
munication technologies to address the COVID-19 crisis. Infor-
mation Systems Frontiers, (0123456789). https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 007/​
s10796-​021-​10210-z
Wijnhoven, F. (2021). Organizational learning for intelligence amplifi-
cation adoption: Lessons from a clinical decision support system
adoption project. Information Systems Frontiers, (0123456789).
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10796-​021-​10206-9
Yuthas, K., & Young, S. T. (1998). Material matters: Assessing the
effectiveness of materials management IS. Information and Man-
agement, 33(3), 115–124. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/S
​ 0378-7​ 206(97)​
00028-1
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13

Amit Kumar Kushwaha  is a part-time research scholar in Informa-
tion Systems at the Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, India, and a
full-time AI/ML practitioner with over 13 years in the industry, cur-
rently working in the capacity of data science practice head of Hewlett
Packard. A gold-medallist engineering graduate with a Hons. Degree,
he completed his Masters (MBA) from SIBM, Pune. His interests lie
in research cutting across business applications of AI/ML innovations
and productionalization of these solutions for the consumption of end-
users. He has published more than 7 peer-reviewed papers in high-
quality journals and conference proceedings. He has received the best
conference paper award at the ISIC conference held in Delhi 2021. He
has also worked part-time as a guest faculty in various educational
institutes and is currently associated as well.
Ruchika Pharswan  is associated with Indian Institute of Technology
Delhi as a PhD Scholar in the Bharti School of Telecommunications
Technology and Management. She is working in the space of Govern-
ance of Artificial Intelligence. Before joining IIT Delhi, she has done
her M.Tech and B.Tech in Computer Science.
Prashant Kumar  is currently a research scholar at the Department
of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, India.
Before this, he has worked as a research assistant at National Institute
of Technology, Arunachal Pradesh, India. He has published articles
in Industrial Marketing Management, Journal of Business Research,
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Review. His research interests are
renewable energy, data analytics, customer experience, and artificial
intelligence.
13
Information Systems Frontiers
Arpan Kumar Kar  is Amar S Gupta Chair Professor in Indian Institute
of Technology Delhi, India. His research interests are in the domain
of data science, digital transformation, internet platforms and public
policy. He has authored over a 170 peer reviewed articles and edited 9
books. Out of these publications, over 50 publications are in ABDC-A,
CABS-3 and Clarivate WoS Q1 quality journals, including 11 ABDC-
A* publications. He is the Editor in Chief of International Journal
of Information Management Data Insights, published by Elsevier. He
is also Associate / Coordinating Editor in Int. Journal of Electronic
Government Research, Journal of Public Affairs, Information Systems
Frontiers and Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management. He
received the Research Excellence Award by Clarivate Analytics for
highest WoS citations in India (2015–2020). He also received the Bas-
ant Kumar Birla Award for the count of ABDC A*/ABS 4 publications
in India (2014–2019). He received the Best Seller Award from Ivey
Cases / Harvard Business Publishing in 2020. He has received over
20 other awards like 3 IFIP Best Papers, ACM ICEGOV Best Paper,
Tata Consultancy Services Gold Medal, Project Management Institute
Award, AIMS Research Award, IIT Delhi Teaching Award, 6 Outstand-
ing Reviewer Awards from Elsevier and many more.