IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v15y2020i3p446-448_12.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Resistance to medical artificial intelligence is an attribute in a compensatory decision process: response to Pezzo and Beckstead (2020)

Author

Listed:
  • Longoni, Chiara
  • Bonezzi, Andrea
  • Morewedge, Carey K.

Abstract

In Longoni et al. (2019), we examine how algorithm aversion influences utilization of healthcare delivered by human and artificial intelligence providers. Pezzo and Beckstead’s (2020) commentary asks whether resistance to medical AI takes the form of a noncompensatory decision strategy, in which a single attribute determines provider choice, or whether resistance to medical AI is one of several attributes considered in a compensatory decision strategy. We clarify that our paper both claims and finds that, all else equal, resistance to medical AI is one of several attributes (e.g., cost and performance) influencing healthcare utilization decisions. In other words, resistance to medical AI is a consequential input to compensatory decisions regarding healthcare utilization and provider choice decisions, not a noncompensatory decision strategy. People do not always reject healthcare provided by AI, and our article makes no claim that they do.

Suggested Citation

  • Longoni, Chiara & Bonezzi, Andrea & Morewedge, Carey K., 2020. "Resistance to medical artificial intelligence is an attribute in a compensatory decision process: response to Pezzo and Beckstead (2020)," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(3), pages 446-448, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:3:p:446-448_12
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500007233/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:3:p:446-448_12. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.