IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jbrese/v187y2025ics0148296324005368.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preventing algorithm aversion: People are willing to use algorithms with a learning label

Author

Listed:
  • Chacon, Alvaro
  • Kausel, Edgar E.
  • Reyes, Tomas
  • Trautmann, Stefan

Abstract

As algorithms often outperform humans in prediction, algorithm aversion is economically harmful. To enhance algorithm utilization, we suggest emphasizing their learning capabilities, i.e., their increasing predictive precision over time, through the explicit addition of a “learning” label. We conducted five incentivized studies in which 1,167 participants may prefer algorithms or take up algorithmic advice in a financial or healthcare related task. Our results suggest that people use algorithms with a learning label to a greater extent than algorithms without such a label. As the accuracy of advice improves beyond a threshold, the use of algorithms with a learning label increases more than algorithms without a label. Thus, we show that a salient learning attribute can positively affect algorithm use in both the financial and health domain.

Suggested Citation

  • Chacon, Alvaro & Kausel, Edgar E. & Reyes, Tomas & Trautmann, Stefan, 2025. "Preventing algorithm aversion: People are willing to use algorithms with a learning label," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:187:y:2025:i:c:s0148296324005368
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.115032
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296324005368
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.115032?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. ., 2019. "Unconscious bias and the future of HRM decision-making," Chapters, in: Human Resource Management and Evolutionary Psychology, chapter 6, pages 90-99, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    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. Jon Kleinberg & Jens Ludwig & Sendhil Mullainathan & Cass R. Sunstein, 2019. "Discrimination In The Age Of Algorithms," NBER Working Papers 25548, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Tripat Gill & Eileen Fischer & Amna Kirmani & Pankaj Aggarwal, 2020. "Blame It on the Self-Driving Car: How Autonomous Vehicles Can Alter Consumer Morality [When Brands Seem Human, Do Humans Act like Brands? Automatic Behavioral Priming Effects of Brand Anthropomorph," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 47(2), pages 272-291.
    5. Bruce E. Hansen, 2000. "Sample Splitting and Threshold Estimation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(3), pages 575-604, May.
    6. Berkeley J. Dietvorst & Joseph P. Simmons & Cade Massey, 2018. "Overcoming Algorithm Aversion: People Will Use Imperfect Algorithms If They Can (Even Slightly) Modify Them," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(3), pages 1155-1170, March.
    7. Pezzo, Mark V. & Beckstead, Jason W., 2020. "Patients prefer artificial intelligence to a human provider, provided the AI is better than the human: A commentary on Longoni, Bonezzi and Morewedge (2019)," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(3), pages 443-445, May.
    8. Mark V. Pezzo & Brenton E. D. Nash & Pierre Vieux & Hannah W. Foster-Grammer, 2022. "Effect of Having, but Not Consulting, a Computerized Diagnostic Aid," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(1), pages 94-104, January.
    9. Mehmet Ali Koseoglu & Issaka Lawerh Tetteh & Brian King, 2019. "Decision tools," Nankai Business Review International, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 10(4), pages 591-617, November.
    10. 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.
    11. Mark V. Pezzo & Jason W. Beckstead, 2020. "Patients prefer artificial intelligence to a human provider, provided the AI is better than the human: A commentary on Longoni, Bonezzi and Morewedge (2019)," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(3), pages 443-445, May.
    12. Xusen Cheng & Fei Guo & Jin Chen & Kejiang Li & Yihui Zhang & Peng Gao, 2019. "Exploring the Trust Influencing Mechanism of Robo-Advisor Service: A Mixed Method Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-20, September.
    13. Highhouse, Scott, 2008. "Stubborn Reliance on Intuition and Subjectivity in Employee Selection," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(3), pages 333-342, September.
    14. Harvey, Nigel & Harries, Clare & Fischer, Ilan, 2000. "Using Advice and Assessing Its Quality," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 252-273, March.
    15. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:3:p:443-445 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. 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.
    17. Sniezek, Janet A. & Van Swol, Lyn M., 2001. "Trust, Confidence, and Expertise in a Judge-Advisor System," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 288-307, March.
    18. Abraham,Facundo & Schmukler,Sergio L. & Tessada,Jose, 2019. "Robo-Advisors : Investing through Machines," Research and Policy Briefs 134881, The World Bank.
    19. Yaniv, Ilan, 2004. "Receiving other people's advice: Influence and benefit," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 1-13, January.
    20. Rajagopal, 2019. "Branding Decisions," Springer Books, in: Competitive Branding Strategies, chapter 0, pages 39-72, Springer.
    21. Kausel, Edgar E. & Connolly, Terry, 2014. "Do people have accurate beliefs about the behavioral consequences of incidental emotions? Evidence from trust games," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 96-111.
    22. Mahmud, Hasan & Islam, A.K.M. Najmul & Ahmed, Syed Ishtiaque & Smolander, Kari, 2022. "What influences algorithmic decision-making? A systematic literature review on algorithm aversion," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    23. Campbell Pryor & Amy Perfors & Piers D. L. Howe, 2019. "Even arbitrary norms influence moral decision-making," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 3(1), pages 57-62, January.
    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. Keding, Christoph & Meissner, Philip, 2021. "Managerial overreliance on AI-augmented decision-making processes: How the use of AI-based advisory systems shapes choice behavior in R&D investment decisions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    2. Benedikt Berger & Martin Adam & Alexander Rühr & Alexander Benlian, 2021. "Watch Me Improve—Algorithm Aversion and Demonstrating the Ability to Learn," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 63(1), pages 55-68, February.
    3. Zulia Gubaydullina & Jan René Judek & Marco Lorenz & Markus Spiwoks, 2022. "Comparing Different Kinds of Influence on an Algorithm in Its Forecasting Process and Their Impact on Algorithm Aversion," Businesses, MDPI, vol. 2(4), pages 1-23, October.
    4. Harvey, Nigel & De Baets, Shari, 2025. "Factors affecting preferences between judgmental and algorithmic forecasts: Feedback, guidance and labeling effects," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 532-553.
    5. Markus Jung & Mischa Seiter, 2021. "Towards a better understanding on mitigating algorithm aversion in forecasting: an experimental study," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 495-516, December.
    6. Merle, Aurélie & St-Onge, Anik & Sénécal, Sylvain, 2022. "Does it pay to be honest? The effect of retailer-provided negative feedback on consumers’ product choice and shopping experience," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 532-543.
    7. 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.
    8. Wang, Xun & Rodrigues, Vasco Sanchez & Demir, Emrah & Sarkis, Joseph, 2024. "Algorithm aversion during disruptions: The case of safety stock," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 278(C).
    9. Palmeira, Mauricio, 2020. "Advice in the presence of external cues: The impact of conflicting judgments on perceptions of expertise," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 82-96.
    10. Jodlbauer, Barbara & Jonas, Eva, 2011. "Forecasting clients' reactions: How does the perception of strategic behavior influence the acceptance of advice?," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 121-133, January.
    11. Van Swol, Lyn M., 2011. "Forecasting another’s enjoyment versus giving the right answer: Trust, shared values, task effects, and confidence in improving the acceptance of advice," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 103-120.
    12. Alexia GAUDEUL & Caterina GIANNETTI, 2023. "Trade-offs in the design of financial algorithms," Discussion Papers 2023/288, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    13. 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.
    14. Mahmud, Hasan & Islam, A.K.M. Najmul & Mitra, Ranjan Kumar, 2023. "What drives managers towards algorithm aversion and how to overcome it? Mitigating the impact of innovation resistance through technology readiness," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    15. Van Swol, Lyn M., 2011. "Forecasting another's enjoyment versus giving the right answer: Trust, shared values, task effects, and confidence in improving the acceptance of advice," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 103-120, January.
    16. Chacon, Alvaro & Kausel, Edgar E. & Reyes, Tomas & Trautmann, Stefan, 2025. "Preventing algorithm aversion : People are willing to use algorithms with a learning label," Other publications TiSEM 97e4b989-681f-45c8-8a0e-9, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    17. Jodlbauer, Barbara & Jonas, Eva, 2011. "Forecasting clients’ reactions: How does the perception of strategic behavior influence the acceptance of advice?," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 121-133.
    18. Yongping Bao & Ludwig Danwitz & Fabian Dvorak & Sebastian Fehrler & Lars Hornuf & Hsuan Yu Lin & Bettina von Helversen, 2022. "Similarity and Consistency in Algorithm-Guided Exploration," CESifo Working Paper Series 10188, CESifo.
    19. Mahmud, Hasan & Islam, A.K.M. Najmul & Ahmed, Syed Ishtiaque & Smolander, Kari, 2022. "What influences algorithmic decision-making? A systematic literature review on algorithm aversion," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    20. 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:jbrese:v:187:y:2025:i:c:s0148296324005368. 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/jbusres .

    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.