IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rco/dpaper/558.html

Delegating in the Age of AI: Preferences for Decision Autonomy

Author

Listed:
  • Radosveta Ivanova-Stenzel

    (TU Berlin)

  • Michel Tolksdorf

    (TU Berlin)

Abstract

Despite the documented benefits of algorithmic decision-making, individuals often prefer to retain control rather than delegate decisions to AI agents. To what extent are the aversion to and distrust of algorithms rooted in a fundamental discomfort with giving up decision authority? Using two incentivized laboratory experiments across distinct decision domains, hiring (social decision-making) and forecasting (analytical decision-making), and decision architecture (nature and number of decisions), we elicit participants’ willingness to delegate decisions separately to an AI agent and a human agent. This within-subject design enables a direct comparison of delegation preferences across different agent types. We find that participants consistently underutilize both agents, even when informed of the agents’ superior performance. However, participants are more willing to delegate to the AI agent than to the human agent. Our results suggest that algorithm aversion may be driven less by distrust in AI and more by a general preference for decision autonomy. This implies that efforts to increase algorithm adoption should address broader concerns about control, rather than focusing solely on trust-building interventions.

Suggested Citation

  • Radosveta Ivanova-Stenzel & Michel Tolksdorf, 2025. "Delegating in the Age of AI: Preferences for Decision Autonomy," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 558, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
  • Handle: RePEc:rco:dpaper:558
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://rationality-and-competition.de/wp-content/uploads/discussion_paper/558.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chiara Longoni & Andrea Bonezzi & Carey K Morewedge, 2019. "Resistance to Medical Artificial Intelligence," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 46(4), pages 629-650.
    2. Ivanova-Stenzel, Radosveta & Tolksdorf, Michel, 2024. "Measuring preferences for algorithms — How willing are people to cede control to algorithms?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    3. Björn Bartling & Ernst Fehr & Holger Herz, 2014. "The Intrinsic Value of Decision Rights," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82, pages 2005-2039, November.
    4. Brad M. Barber & Terrance Odean, 2001. "The Internet and the Investor," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(1), pages 41-54, Winter.
    5. Marie-Pierre Dargnies & Rustamdjan Hakimov & Dorothea Kübler, 2026. "Aversion to Hiring Algorithms: Transparency, Gender Profiling, and Self-Confidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 72(1), pages 285-301, January.
    6. repec:ces:ceswps:_10342 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. 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.
    8. David Owens Jr. & Zachary Grossman Jr. & Ryan Fackler Jr., 2014. "The Control Premium: A Preference for Payoff Autonomy," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 6(4), pages 138-161, November.
    9. John A. List, 2025. "The Experimentalist Looks Within: Toward an Understanding of Within-Subject Experimental Designs," NBER Working Papers 33456, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. 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).
    11. Maximilian Germann & Christoph Merkle, 2023. "Algorithm aversion in delegated investing," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 93(9), pages 1691-1727, November.
    12. Felix Holzmeister & Martin Holmén & Michael Kirchler & Matthias Stefan & Erik Wengström, 2023. "Delegation Decisions in Finance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(8), pages 4828-4844, August.
    13. Freundt, Jana & Herz, Holger & KOPP, leander, 2023. "Intrinsic Preferences for Autonomy," FSES Working Papers 530, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Freiburg/Fribourg Switzerland.
    14. Chugunova, Marina & Sele, Daniela, 2022. "We and It: An interdisciplinary review of the experimental evidence on how humans interact with machines," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    15. 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).
    16. Margarita Leib & Nils Köbis & Rainer Michael Rilke & Marloes Hagens & Bernd Irlenbusch, 2024. "Corrupted by Algorithms? How AI-generated and Human-written Advice Shape (Dis)honesty," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 134(658), pages 766-784.
    17. Ernst Fehr & Holger Herz & Tom Wilkening, 2013. "The Lure of Authority: Motivation and Incentive Effects of Power," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(4), pages 1325-1359, June.
    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. Ivanova-Stenzel, Radosveta & Tolksdorf, Michel, 2024. "Measuring preferences for algorithms — How willing are people to cede control to algorithms?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    2. 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.
    3. Chacon, Alvaro & Martínez-Troncoso, Carolina & Kausel, Edgar E., 2025. "Customer behavior in the presence of algorithmic marketing agents: The role of hedonic values," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    4. Marina Chugunova & Wolfgang J. Luhan, 2025. "Ruled by robots: preference for algorithmic decision makers and perceptions of their choices," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 202(1), pages 1-24, January.
    5. Ertac, Seda & Gumren, Mert & Gurdal, Mehmet Y., 2020. "Demand for decision autonomy and the desire to avoid responsibility in risky environments: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    6. David Danz & Dorothea Kübler & Lydia Mechtenberg & Julia Schmid, 2015. "On the Failure of Hindsight-Biased Principals to Delegate Optimally," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(8), pages 1938-1958, August.
    7. Uzma Afzal & Giovanna d'Adda & Marcel Fafchamps & Farah Said, 2016. "Gender and Agency within the Household: Experimental Evidence from Pakistan," Framed Field Experiments 00555, The Field Experiments Website.
    8. Özalp Özer & Upender Subramanian & Yu Wang, 2018. "Information Sharing, Advice Provision, or Delegation: What Leads to Higher Trust and Trustworthiness?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 474-493, January.
    9. Staněk, Rostislav & Krčál, Ondřej & Čellárová, Katarína, 2022. "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps: Identifying procedural preferences against helping others in the presence of moral hazard," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    10. Björn Bartling & Krishna Srinivasan, 2025. "Paternalistic Interventions: Determinants of Demand and Supply," CESifo Working Paper Series 11886, CESifo.
    11. Klockmann, Victor & von Schenk, Alicia & von Siemens, Ferdinand A., 2021. "Division of labor and the organization of knowledge in production: A laboratory experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 196-210.
    12. Silvia Lübbecke & Wendelin Schnedler, 2020. "Don't patronize me! An experiment on preferences for authorship," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 420-438, April.
    13. Zehnle, Meike & Hildebrand, Christian & Valenzuela, Ana, 2025. "Not all AI is created equal: A meta-analysis revealing drivers of AI resistance across markets, methods, and time," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 729-751.
    14. Dell'Era, Michele, 2019. "Talking to Influence and the Consulting Paradox," MPRA Paper 93803, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. 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).
    16. Ploner, Matteo & Saredi, Viola, 2020. "Exploration and delegation in risky choices," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    17. Silvia Dominguez Martinez & Randolph Sloof, 2016. "Communication versus (Restricted) Delegation: An Experimental Comparison," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 16-050/VII, Tinbergen Institute.
    18. Eckel, Catherine C. & Fatas, Enrique & Kass, Malcolm, 2022. "Sacrifice: An experiment on the political economy of extreme intergroup punishment," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    19. Gao, Yuhong & Blayac, Thierry & Willinger, Marc, 2025. "Delegating moral dilemmas in autonomous vehicles evidence from an online experiment in China," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 721-752.
    20. Dominguez-Martinez, Silvia & Sloof, Randolph & von Siemens, Ferdinand A., 2014. "Monitored by your friends, not your foes: Strategic ignorance and the delegation of real authority," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 289-305.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D44 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Auctions
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness

    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:rco:dpaper:558. 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: Viviana Lalli (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://rationality-and-competition.de .

    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.