Algorithm-augmented work and domain experience: the countervailing forces of ability and aversion

Past research offers mixed perspectives on whether domain experience helps or hurts algorithm-augmented worker performance. Reconciling these perspectives, we theorize that intermediate levels of domain experience are optimal for algorithm-augmented performance, due to the interplay between two countervailing forces-ability and aversion. Although domain experience can increase performance via increased ability to complement algorithmic advice (e.g., identifying inaccurate predictions), it can also decrease performance via increased aversion to accurate algorithmic advice. Because ability developed through learning by doing increases at a decreasing rate, and algorithmic aversion is more prevalent among experts, we theorize that algorithm-augmented performance will first rise with increasing domain experience, then fall. We test this by exploiting a within-subjects experiment in which corporate information technology support workers were assigned to resolve problems both manually and using an algorithmic tool. We confirm that the difference between performance with the algorithmic tool versus without the tool was characterized by an inverted U-shape over the range of domain experience. Only workers with moderate domain experience did significantly better using the algorithm than resolving tickets manually. These findings highlight that, even if greater domain experience increases workers' ability to complement algorithms, domain experience can also trigger other mechanisms that overcome the positive ability effect and inhibit performance. Additional analyses and participant interviews suggest that, even though the highest experience workers had the greatest ability to complement the algorithmic tool, they rejected its advice because they felt greater accountability for possible unintended consequences of accepting algorithmic advice.