IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v151y2019icp90-103.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment

Author

Listed:
  • Logg, Jennifer M.
  • Minson, Julia A.
  • Moore, Don A.

Abstract

Even though computational algorithms often outperform human judgment, received wisdom suggests that people may be skeptical of relying on them (Dawes, 1979). Counter to this notion, results from six experiments show that lay people adhere more to advice when they think it comes from an algorithm than from a person. People showed this effect, what we call algorithm appreciation, when making numeric estimates about a visual stimulus (Experiment 1A) and forecasts about the popularity of songs and romantic attraction (Experiments 1B and 1C). Yet, researchers predicted the opposite result (Experiment 1D). Algorithm appreciation persisted when advice appeared jointly or separately (Experiment 2). However, algorithm appreciation waned when: people chose between an algorithm’s estimate and their own (versus an external advisor’s; Experiment 3) and they had expertise in forecasting (Experiment 4). Paradoxically, experienced professionals, who make forecasts on a regular basis, relied less on algorithmic advice than lay people did, which hurt their accuracy. These results shed light on the important question of when people rely on algorithmic advice over advice from people and have implications for the use of “big data” and algorithmic advice it generates.

Suggested Citation

  • Logg, Jennifer M. & Minson, Julia A. & Moore, Don A., 2019. "Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 90-103.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:151:y:2019:i:c:p:90-103
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.12.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597818303388
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.12.005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Moore, Don A. & Klein, William M.P., 2008. "Use of absolute and comparative performance feedback in absolute and comparative judgments and decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 107(1), pages 60-74, September.
    2. Sniezek, Janet A. & Buckley, Timothy, 1995. "Cueing and Cognitive Conflict in Judge-Advisor Decision Making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 159-174, May.
    3. Yaniv, Ilan & Kleinberger, Eli, 2000. "Advice Taking in Decision Making: Egocentric Discounting and Reputation Formation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 260-281, November.
    4. Irwin, Julie R & Slovic, Paul & Lichtenstein, Sarah & McClelland, Gary H., 1993. "Preference Reversals and the Measurement of Environmental Values," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 5-18, January.
    5. Soll, Jack B. & Mannes, Albert E., 2011. "Judgmental aggregation strategies depend on whether the self is involved," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 81-102, January.
    6. Max H. Bazerman, 1985. "Norms of Distributive Justice in Interest Arbitration," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 38(4), pages 558-570, July.
    7. Hsee, Christopher K., 1996. "The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 247-257, September.
    8. Albert E. Mannes, 2009. "Are We Wise About the Wisdom of Crowds? The Use of Group Judgments in Belief Revision," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(8), pages 1267-1279, August.
    9. Gino, Francesca, 2008. "Do we listen to advice just because we paid for it? The impact of advice cost on its use," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 234-245, November.
    10. Harvey, Nigel & Fischer, Ilan, 1997. "Taking Advice: Accepting Help, Improving Judgment, and Sharing Responsibility," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 117-133, May.
    11. Bazerman, Max H. & Moore, Don A. & Tenbrunsel, Ann E. & Wade-Benzoni, Kimberly A. & Blount, Sally, 1999. "Explaining how preferences change across joint versus separate evaluation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 41-58, May.
    12. Andrew Prahl & Lyn Van Swol, 2017. "Understanding algorithm aversion: When is advice from automation discounted?," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(6), pages 691-702, September.
    13. Soll, Jack B. & Mannes, Albert E., 2011. "Judgmental aggregation strategies depend on whether the self is involved," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 81-102.
    14. Petropoulos, Fotios & Fildes, Robert & Goodwin, Paul, 2016. "Do ‘big losses’ in judgmental adjustments to statistical forecasts affect experts’ behaviour?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 842-852.
    15. Bonaccio, Silvia & Dalal, Reeshad S., 2006. "Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 127-151, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kausel, Edgar E. & Culbertson, Satoris S. & Leiva, Pedro I. & Slaughter, Jerel E. & Jackson, Alexander T., 2015. "Too arrogant for their own good? Why and when narcissists dismiss advice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 33-50.
    2. Rader, Christina A. & Soll, Jack B. & Larrick, Richard P., 2015. "Pushing away from representative advice: Advice taking, anchoring, and adjustment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 26-43.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:4:p:401-415 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Mandy Hütter & Fabian Ache, 2016. "Seeking advice: A sampling approach to advice taking," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(4), pages 401-415, July.
    5. Philipp Ecken & Richard Pibernik, 2016. "Hit or Miss: What Leads Experts to Take Advice for Long-Term Judgments?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(7), pages 2002-2021, July.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:3:p:349-363 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:3:p:265-276 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:2:p:144-171 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Thomas Schultze & Anne-Fernandine Rakotoarisoa & Stefan Schulz-Hardt, 2015. "Effects of distance between initial estimates and advice on advice utilization," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(2), pages 144-171, March.
    10. Thomas Schultze & Andreas Mojzisch & Stefan Schulz-Hardt, 2019. "Why dyads heed advice less than individuals do," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(3), pages 349-363, May.
    11. Peter Bednarik & Thomas Schultze, 2015. "The effectiveness of imperfect weighting in advice taking," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(3), pages 265-276, May.
    12. See, Kelly E. & Morrison, Elizabeth W. & Rothman, Naomi B. & Soll, Jack B., 2011. "The detrimental effects of power on confidence, advice taking, and accuracy," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 116(2), pages 272-285.
    13. Alison Wood Brooks & Francesca Gino & Maurice E. Schweitzer, 2015. "Smart People Ask for (My) Advice: Seeking Advice Boosts Perceptions of Competence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(6), pages 1421-1435, June.
    14. Chen Li & Ning Liu, 2021. "What to tell? Wise communication and wise crowd," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 90(2), pages 279-299, March.
    15. Ilan Yaniv & Shoham Choshen-Hillel, 2012. "When guessing what another person would say is better than giving your own opinion: Using perspective-taking to improve advice-taking," Discussion Paper Series dp622, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    16. Jaeseob Lim & Sang-Hun Lee, 2020. "Utility and use of accuracy cues in social learning of crowd preferences," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-25, October.
    17. Sprenger, Julia, 2016. "Financial literacy: A barrier to seek financial advice but not a shield against following it," Ruhr Economic Papers 634, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    18. Effron, Daniel A. & Miller, Dale T., 2015. "Do as I say, not as I’ve done: Suffering for a misdeed reduces the hypocrisy of advising others against it," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 16-32.
    19. Soll, Jack B. & Mannes, Albert E., 2011. "Judgmental aggregation strategies depend on whether the self is involved," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 81-102.
    20. Corentin Vande Kerckhove & Samuel Martin & Pascal Gend & Peter J Rentfrow & Julien M Hendrickx & Vincent D Blondel, 2016. "Modelling Influence and Opinion Evolution in Online Collective Behaviour," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-25, June.
    21. Soll, Jack B. & Mannes, Albert E., 2011. "Judgmental aggregation strategies depend on whether the self is involved," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 81-102, January.
    22. Blunden, Hayley & Logg, Jennifer M. & Brooks, Alison Wood & John, Leslie K. & Gino, Francesca, 2019. "Seeker beware: The interpersonal costs of ignoring advice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 83-100.
    23. Önkal, Dilek & Sinan Gönül, M. & Goodwin, Paul & Thomson, Mary & Öz, Esra, 2017. "Evaluating expert advice in forecasting: Users’ reactions to presumed vs. experienced credibility," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 280-297.
    24. Gino, Francesca, 2008. "Do we listen to advice just because we paid for it? The impact of advice cost on its use," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 234-245, November.

    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:eee:jobhdp:v:151:y:2019:i:c:p:90-103. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    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.