Explanatory feedback positively moderates only the path from decision-making agent to perceived fairness, not the direct path to decision acceptance¶

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

Subclaims¶

q3 i? There was a significant positive interaction between the decision-making agent and explanatory feedback in predicting perceived fairness. → Zhang Zhen; Fan Siyu; Qi Chunhui 2026 q3 i? The interaction term between the decision-making agent and explanatory feedback failed to significantly predict decision acceptance. → 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 · i? · causal · r2

In the PROCESS regression predicting perceived fairness (R2 = 0.17, F = 13.27, p < 0.001), the agent × feedback interaction was significant, β = 0.58, t = 2.45, p < 0.05, with a confidence interval excluding zero.

"There was a significant positive interaction between the decision-making agent and explanatory feedback (β = 0.58, t = 2.45, p < 0.05, 95% CI [0.11, 1.03], excluding zero), indicating that explanatory feedback attenuates the positive predictive effect of the decision-making agent on perceived fairness."

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 · r2

In the PROCESS regression predicting decision acceptance (R2 = 0.57, F = 51.60, p < 0.001), the agent × feedback interaction was non-significant, β = 0.19, t = 0.77, p > 0.05, with a confidence interval containing zero.

"By contrast, the interaction term between the decision-making agent and explanatory feedback failed to significantly predict decision acceptance (β = 0.19, t = 0.77, p > 0.05, 95% CI [−0.29, 0.66], containing zero)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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 — 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
• Providing explanations widens the human–AI gap in perceived fairness, with a larger fairness improvement in the teacher condition — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Interviewed students adopted an iterative upload–review–revise workflow and perceived the AI feedback as fair and highly useful, though some disregarded recommendations conflicting with their design intent — related
• Junior high school students report significantly higher acceptance of teacher-made grading decisions than AI-generated decisions — related
• Feedback is more effective for cognitive and physical outcomes than for motivational and behavioral outcomes — related