Task-Dependent Algorithm Aversion

被引:679
作者
Castelo, Noah [1 ]
Bos, Maarten W. [2 ]
Lehmann, Donald R. [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Alberta, Mkt, Edmonton, AB, Canada
[2] Snap Inc, Santa Monica, CA USA
[3] Columbia Univ, Business, New York, NY 10027 USA
关键词
algorithms; new products; technology adoption; DECISION-MAKING; TRUST; TECHNOLOGY; PREDICTION; FEELINGS; JUDGMENT; ADOPTION; CHOICE; ROBOTS; RISK;
D O I
10.1177/0022243719851788
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Research suggests that consumers are averse to relying on algorithms to perform tasks that are typically done by humans, despite the fact that algorithms often perform better. The authors explore when and why this is true in a wide variety of domains. They find that algorithms are trusted and relied on less for tasks that seem subjective (vs. objective) in nature. However, they show that perceived task objectivity is malleable and that increasing a task's perceived objectivity increases trust in and use of algorithms for that task. Consumers mistakenly believe that algorithms lack the abilities required to perform subjective tasks. Increasing algorithms' perceived affective human-likeness is therefore effective at increasing the use of algorithms for subjective tasks. These findings are supported by the results of four online lab studies with over 1,400 participants and two online field studies with over 56,000 participants. The results provide insights into when and why consumers are likely to use algorithms and how marketers can increase their use when they outperform humans.
引用
收藏
页码:809 / 825
页数:17
相关论文
共 57 条
[51]   Why Do Patients Derogate Physicians Who Use a Computer-Based Diagnostic Support System? [J].
Shaffer, Victoria A. ;
Probst, C. Adam ;
Merkle, Edgar C. ;
Arkes, Hal R. ;
Medow, Mitchell A. .
MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 2013, 33 (01) :108-118
[52]   Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality [J].
Slovic, P ;
Finucane, ML ;
Peters, E ;
MacGregor, DG .
RISK ANALYSIS, 2004, 24 (02) :311-322
[53]   CUEING AND COGNITIVE CONFLICT IN JUDGE-ADVISER DECISION-MAKING [J].
SNIEZEK, JA ;
BUCKLEY, T .
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES, 1995, 62 (02) :159-174
[54]   Strategies for Revising Judgment: How (and How Well) People Use Others' Opinions [J].
Soll, Jack B. ;
Larrick, Richard P. .
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-LEARNING MEMORY AND COGNITION, 2009, 35 (03) :780-805
[55]  
Tom Simonite, 2014, MIT TECHNOL REV
[56]   Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior [J].
Trope, Yaacov ;
Liberman, Nira ;
Wakslak, Cheryl .
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER PSYCHOLOGY, 2007, 17 (02) :83-95
[57]   Making sense of recommendations [J].
Yeomans, Michael ;
Shah, Anuj ;
Mullainathan, Sendhil ;
Kleinberg, Jon .
JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL DECISION MAKING, 2019, 32 (04) :403-414