IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceco/v112y2024ics2214804324001071.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring preferences for algorithms — How willing are people to cede control to algorithms?

Author

Listed:
  • Ivanova-Stenzel, Radosveta
  • Tolksdorf, Michel

Abstract

We suggest a simple method to elicit individual preferences for algorithms. By altering the monetary incentives for ceding control to the algorithm, the menu-based approach allows for measuring in particular the degree of algorithm aversion. Using an experiment, we elicit preferences for algorithms in an environment with measurable performance accuracy under two conditions — the absence and the presence of information about the algorithm’s performance. Providing such information raises subjects’ willingness to rely on algorithms when ceding control to the algorithm is more costly than trusting in their own assessment. However, algorithms are still underutilized.

Suggested Citation

  • 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).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:112:y:2024:i:c:s2214804324001071
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2024.102270
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804324001071
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socec.2024.102270?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. Ben Greiner, 2015. "Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 114-125, July.
    2. repec:dar:wpaper:138565 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Dargnies, Marie-Pierre & Hakimov, Rustamdjan & Kübler, Dorothea, 2022. "Aversion to hiring algorithms: Transparency, gender profiling, and self-confidence," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Market Behavior SP II 2022-202, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    4. 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.
    5. Steffen Andersen & Glenn Harrison & Morten Lau & E. Rutström, 2009. "Elicitation using multiple price list formats," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 12(3), pages 365-366, September.
    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. Filiz, Ibrahim & Judek, Jan René & Lorenz, Marco & Spiwoks, Markus, 2021. "Reducing algorithm aversion through experience," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 31(C).
    8. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    9. Efendić, Emir & Van de Calseyde, Philippe P.F.M. & Evans, Anthony M., 2020. "Slow response times undermine trust in algorithmic (but not human) predictions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 103-114.
    10. 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).
    11. 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).
    12. 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.
    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, 2023. "Measuring Preferences for Algorithms - Are people really algorithm averse after seeing the algorithm perform?," VfS Annual Conference 2023 (Regensburg): Growth and the "sociale Frage" 277692, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Tamás Csermely & Alexander Rabas, 2016. "How to reveal people’s preferences: Comparing time consistency and predictive power of multiple price list risk elicitation methods," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 107-136, December.
    5. 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).
    6. Colasante, Annarita & Marini, Matteo M. & Russo, Alberto, 2017. "Incidental emotions and risk-taking: An experimental analysis," MPRA Paper 76992, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Sürücü, Oktay & Djawadi, Behnud Mir & Recker, Sonja, 2019. "The asymmetric dominance effect: Reexamination and extension in risky choice – An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 102-122.
    8. Jacob-Leal, Sandrine & Hanaki, Nobuyuki, 2024. "Algorithmic trading, what if it is just an illusion? Evidence from experimental asset markets," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    9. Rosato, Antonio & Tymula, Agnieszka A., 2024. "A novel experimental test of truthful bidding in second-price auctions with real objects," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    10. Siebert, Jan, 2020. "Are the poor more impatient than the rich? Experimental evidence on the effect of (lab) wealth on intertemporal preferences," Ruhr Economic Papers 845, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    11. Aurélie Bonein & Stéphane Turolla, 2023. "Spatial competition with demand uncertainty: A laboratory experiment," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(4), pages 906-939, October.
    12. Roxane Bricet, 2018. "Preferences for information precision under ambiguity," THEMA Working Papers 2018-09, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    13. Yuhao Fu & Nobuyuki Hanaki, 2024. "Do people rely on ChatGPT more than their peers to detect deepfake news?," ISER Discussion Paper 1233r, Institute of Social and Economic Research, The University of Osaka, revised Dec 2024.
    14. 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.
    15. Bajzíková, Stanislava & Cingl, Lubomír, 2023. "Measuring stereotypes in effort tasks: A multiple-price list approach," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    16. 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).
    17. Filiz, Ibrahim & Judek, Jan René & Lorenz, Marco & Spiwoks, Markus, 2021. "Reducing algorithm aversion through experience," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 31(C).
    18. Bruhin, Adrian & Santos-Pinto, Luís & Staubli, David, 2018. "How do beliefs about skill affect risky decisions?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 350-371.
    19. David Bruner & Caleb Cox & David M. McEvoy & Brock Stoddard, 2022. "Strategic thinking in contests," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(3), pages 942-973, June.
    20. Wendelin Schnedler & Nina Lucia Stephan, 2020. "Revisiting a Remedy Against Chains of Unkindness," Schmalenbach Business Review, Springer;Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft, vol. 72(3), pages 347-364, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Algorithm aversion; Delegation; Experiment; Preferences;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making

    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:eee:soceco:v:112:y:2024:i:c:s2214804324001071. 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/inca/620175 .

    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.