Explanatory feedback alone raises both perceived fairness and decision acceptance, and the indirect effect of agent on acceptance is significant only when explanations are provided¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1–r2 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 Decision acceptance was significantly higher for participants receiving explanatory feedback than for those without explanations. → Zhang Zhen; Fan Siyu; Qi Chunhui 2026 q3 i? The indirect effect of decision-making agent on acceptance via fairness was significant only in the explanatory subgroup. → Zhang Zhen; Fan Siyu; Qi Chunhui 2026 (2)

Evidence¶

Zhang Zhen; Fan Siyu; Qi Chunhui 2026¶

Zhang Zhen; Fan Siyu; Qi Chunhui. (2026). Teacher or Artificial Intelligence? The Effect of Decision-Making Agent on Junior High School Students’ Decision Acceptance: A Moderated Mediation Model. Behavioral Sciences. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs16071227

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

In the 2×2 factorial ANOVA on decision acceptance (N = 250), the main effect of explanatory feedback was significant, F(1,246) = 32.01, partial η2 = 0.11, with means of 4.42 versus 3.52. A parallel main effect on perceived fairness was also significant (partial η2 = 0.07).

"A significant main effect of explanatory feedback was also observed, F(1,246) = 32.01, p < 0.001, partial η2= 0.11. Decision acceptance was significantly higher for participants receiving explanatory feedback (M = 4.42, SD = 1.41) than for those without explanations (M = 3.52, SD = 1.30), p < 0.001."

Zhang Zhen; Fan Siyu; Qi Chunhui 2026 (2)¶

Zhang Zhen; Fan Siyu; Qi Chunhui. (2026). Teacher or Artificial Intelligence? The Effect of Decision-Making Agent on Junior High School Students’ Decision Acceptance: A Moderated Mediation Model. Behavioral Sciences. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs16071227

q3 · i? · causal · r1

Conditional indirect effects from the PROCESS analysis (5000 bootstrap resamples) showed a significant indirect effect only for the explanatory subgroup (0.79, CI excluding zero); the non-explanatory subgroup's indirect effect (0.27) was non-significant, though both subgroups had significant direct effects.

"Regarding indirect effects, the indirect effect of the explanatory group was 0.79, with a 95% bootstrap confidence interval of [0.52, 1.09] that excluded zero. By contrast, the indirect effect of the non-explanatory group was 0.27, with a 95% bootstrap confidence interval of [−0.03, 0.59] that contained zero, indicating a non-significant indirect effect for this subgroup."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Providing explanations widens the human–AI gap in perceived fairness, with a larger fairness improvement in the teacher condition — related
• Explanatory feedback positively moderates only the path from decision-making agent to perceived fairness, not the direct path to decision acceptance — reports the opposite
• Perceived fairness partially mediates the effect of decision-making agent on decision acceptance, accounting for 67.52% of the total effect — related
• Students find computer-based simulation feedback insufficient because incorrect responses are marked without explanation — related
• Junior high school students report significantly higher acceptance of teacher-made grading decisions than AI-generated decisions — related
• User acceptance of AI-driven decisions depends on explanation type, with sensitivity-analysis and certification explanations increasing acceptance — a narrower finding that bears on this claim