IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/rnj5h_v2.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Ad Machina: Partisanship and Support for Delegating Government Decisions to Autonomous Algorithms

Author

Listed:
  • DiGiuseppe, Matthew

    (Leiden University)

  • Paula, Katrin
  • Rommel, Tobias

Abstract

Under which conditions are citizens willing to delegate government responsibilities to artificial intelligence? We hypothesize that the identity of incumbent policymakers impacts public support for delegating decisions to AI. In highly polarized societies, AI has the potential to be perceived as a decision maker with apolitical or less partisan motivations in governance decisions. We thus reason that individuals will prefer co-partisans to AI or algorithmic decision making. However, a switch to AI decision making will have more public support when out-partisans hold policy control. To test our hypothesis, we fielded a survey experiment in the summer of 2024 that asked about 2500 respondents in the US to register their support for AI making the most important economic decision in the world -- the setting of the base interest rate by the US Federal Reserve. The basis of our experimental treatments is the fact that Jerome Powell, the current chair of the Fed, was appointed first by President Trump, a Republican, and later re-appointed by President Biden, a Democrat. We find that when we inform respondents that Powell was appointed by a president from another party, support for delegation to AI increases compared to the condition when the Fed chair is appointed by a co-partisan. The complier average causal effect (CACE) indicates that change perception of the Fed Chair to an outpartisan increases support for delegating to AI by over 45%.

Suggested Citation

  • DiGiuseppe, Matthew & Paula, Katrin & Rommel, Tobias, 2025. "Ad Machina: Partisanship and Support for Delegating Government Decisions to Autonomous Algorithms," SocArXiv rnj5h_v2, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:rnj5h_v2
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/rnj5h_v2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/686634dc29afb14be49ff017/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/rnj5h_v2?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ibrahim Filiz & Jan René Judek & Marco Lorenz & Markus Spiwoks, 2023. "The extent of algorithm aversion in decision-making situations with varying gravity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(2), pages 1-21, February.
    2. 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.
    3. Waggoner Philip D. & Kennedy Ryan & Le Hayden & Shiran Myriam, 2019. "Big Data and Trust in Public Policy Automation," Statistics, Politics and Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 10(2), pages 115-136, December.
    4. James N. Druckman & Samara Klar & Yanna Krupnikov & Matthew Levendusky & John Barry Ryan, 2021. "Affective polarization, local contexts and public opinion in America," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(1), pages 28-38, 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. Michael Vössing & Niklas Kühl & Matteo Lind & Gerhard Satzger, 2022. "Designing Transparency for Effective Human-AI Collaboration," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 877-895, June.
    2. Lucia Freira & Marco Sartorio & Cynthia Boruchowicz & Florencia Lopez Boo & Joaquin Navajas, 2021. "The interplay between partisanship, forecasted COVID-19 deaths, and support for preventive policies," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, December.
    3. Dimitris Bertsimas & Agni Orfanoudaki, 2021. "Algorithmic Insurance," Papers 2106.00839, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2022.
    4. 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).
    5. Bryce McLaughlin & Jann Spiess, 2022. "Algorithmic Assistance with Recommendation-Dependent Preferences," Papers 2208.07626, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    6. Doumpos, Michalis & Zopounidis, Constantin & Gounopoulos, Dimitrios & Platanakis, Emmanouil & Zhang, Wenke, 2023. "Operational research and artificial intelligence methods in banking," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(1), pages 1-16.
    7. 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.
    8. Tse, Tiffany Tsz Kwan & Hanaki, Nobuyuki & Mao, Bolin, 2024. "Beware the performance of an algorithm before relying on it: Evidence from a stock price forecasting experiment," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    9. Jan René Judek, 2024. "Willingness to Use Algorithms Varies with Social Information on Weak vs. Strong Adoption: An Experimental Study on Algorithm Aversion," FinTech, MDPI, vol. 3(1), pages 1-11, January.
    10. Kohei Kawaguchi, 2021. "When Will Workers Follow an Algorithm? A Field Experiment with a Retail Business," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 1670-1695, March.
    11. Francis de Véricourt & Huseyin Gurkan, 2022. "Is your machine better than you? You may never know," ESMT Research Working Papers ESMT-22-02, ESMT European School of Management and Technology.
    12. Zhu, Yimin & Zhang, Jiemin & Wu, Jifei & Liu, Yingyue, 2022. "AI is better when I'm sure: The influence of certainty of needs on consumers' acceptance of AI chatbots," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 642-652.
    13. 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.
    14. Mark W Susmann & Graham N Dixon & Brad J Bushman & R Kelly Garrett, 2022. "Correcting misperceptions of gun policy support can foster intergroup cooperation between gun owners and non-gun owners," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(6), pages 1-13, June.
    15. 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.
    16. James N. Druckman, 2022. "Threats to Science: Politicization, Misinformation, and Inequalities," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 700(1), pages 8-24, March.
    17. 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).
    18. John M. Carey & Andrew M. Guess & Peter J. Loewen & Eric Merkley & Brendan Nyhan & Joseph B. Phillips & Jason Reifler, 2022. "The ephemeral effects of fact-checks on COVID-19 misperceptions in the United States, Great Britain and Canada," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 6(2), pages 236-243, February.
    19. Ekaterina Jussupow & Kai Spohrer & Armin Heinzl & Joshua Gawlitza, 2021. "Augmenting Medical Diagnosis Decisions? An Investigation into Physicians’ Decision-Making Process with Artificial Intelligence," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 713-735, September.
    20. Bó, Inácio & Chen, Li & Hakimov, Rustamdjan, 2024. "Strategic responses to personalized pricing and demand for privacy: An experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 487-516.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:osf:socarx:rnj5h_v2. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    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.