IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jconrs/v46y2019i4p629-650..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Resistance to Medical Artificial Intelligence

Author

Listed:
  • Chiara Longoni
  • Andrea Bonezzi
  • Carey K Morewedge

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing healthcare, but little is known about consumer receptivity to AI in medicine. Consumers are reluctant to utilize healthcare provided by AI in real and hypothetical choices, separate and joint evaluations. Consumers are less likely to utilize healthcare (study 1), exhibit lower reservation prices for healthcare (study 2), are less sensitive to differences in provider performance (studies 3A–3C), and derive negative utility if a provider is automated rather than human (study 4). Uniqueness neglect, a concern that AI providers are less able than human providers to account for consumers’ unique characteristics and circumstances, drives consumer resistance to medical AI. Indeed, resistance to medical AI is stronger for consumers who perceive themselves to be more unique (study 5). Uniqueness neglect mediates resistance to medical AI (study 6), and is eliminated when AI provides care (a) that is framed as personalized (study 7), (b) to consumers other than the self (study 8), or (c) that only supports, rather than replaces, a decision made by a human healthcare provider (study 9). These findings make contributions to the psychology of automation and medical decision making, and suggest interventions to increase consumer acceptance of AI in medicine.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:jconrs:v:46:y:2019:i:4:p:629-650.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jcr/ucz013
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    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. Boatsman, James R. & Moeckel, Cindy & Pei, Buck K. W., 1997. "The Effects of Decision Consequences on Auditors' Reliance on Decision Aids in Audit Planning," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 211-247, August.
    2. Sanders, Nada R. & Manrodt, Karl B., 2003. "The efficacy of using judgmental versus quantitative forecasting methods in practice," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 511-522, December.
    3. Victoria A. Shaffer & C. Adam Probst & Edgar C. Merkle & Hal R. Arkes & Mitchell A. Medow, 2013. "Why Do Patients Derogate Physicians Who Use a Computer-Based Diagnostic Support System?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(1), pages 108-118, January.
    4. J Jeffrey Inman & Margaret C Campbell & Amna Kirmani & Linda L Price, 2018. "Our Vision for the Journal of Consumer Research: It’s All about the Consumer," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 44(5), pages 955-959.
    5. Simona Botti & Kristina Orfali & Sheena S. Iyengar, 2009. "Tragic Choices: Autonomy and Emotional Responses to Medical Decisions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 36(3), pages 337-352.
    6. Sancy A. Leachman & Glenn Merlino, 2017. "The final frontier in cancer diagnosis," Nature, Nature, vol. 542(7639), pages 36-38, February.
    7. Irene Scopelliti & Carey K. Morewedge & Erin McCormick & H. Lauren Min & Sophie Lebrecht & Karim S. Kassam, 2015. "Bias Blind Spot: Structure, Measurement, and Consequences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(10), pages 2468-2486, October.
    8. Marc Vanhuele & Barbara Kahn, 1997. "Examining Medical Decision Making from a Marketing Perspective," Post-Print hal-00457577, HAL.
    9. 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.
    10. Ulf Böckenholt & Elke U. Weber, 1992. "Use of formal Methods in Medical Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 12(4), pages 298-306, December.
    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. Huang, Xiaozhi & Wu, Xitong & Cao, Xin & Wu, Jifei, 2023. "The effect of medical artificial intelligence innovation locus on consumer adoption of new products," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    2. Martin Bäckström & Fredrik Björklund, 2017. "Increasing systematicity leads to better selection decisions: Evidence from a computer paradigm for evaluating selection tools," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-15, May.
    3. Marie-Pierre Dargnies & Rustamdjan Hakimov & Dorothea Kübler, 2022. "Aversion to Hiring Algorithms: Transparency, Gender Profiling, and Self-Confidence," CESifo Working Paper Series 9968, CESifo.
    4. 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.
    5. Baecke, Philippe & De Baets, Shari & Vanderheyden, Karlien, 2017. "Investigating the added value of integrating human judgement into statistical demand forecasting systems," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 85-96.
    6. Amos Schurr & Yaakov Kareev & Judith Avrahami & Ilana Ritov, 2012. "Taking the Broad Perspective: Risky Choices in Repeated Proficiency Tasks," Discussion Paper Series dp621, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    7. Syntetos, Aris A. & Kholidasari, Inna & Naim, Mohamed M., 2016. "The effects of integrating management judgement into OUT levels: In or out of context?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 853-863.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1392-1412 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. 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.
    10. Cait Lamberton & Tom Wein & Andrew Morningstar & Sakshi Ghai, 2024. "Marketing’s role in promoting dignity and human rights: A conceptualization for assessment and future research," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 52(5), pages 1391-1411, October.
    11. Aleksandra Kovacheva & Cait Lamberton & Eugenia Wu, 2024. "Should it be my party? Consumer roles in joint experiences," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 477-488, September.
    12. Bauer, Kevin & Nofer, Michael & Abdel-Karim, Benjamin M. & Hinz, Oliver, 2022. "The effects of discontinuing machine learning decision support," SAFE Working Paper Series 370, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    13. Dalton, Michael & Landry, Peter, 2020. "‘Overattention’ to first-hand experience in hiring decisions: Evidence from professional basketball," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 98-113.
    14. Monika Kackovic & Joop Hartog & Hans van Ophem & Nachoem Wijnberg, 2022. "The promise of potential: A study on the effectiveness of jury selection to a prestigious visual arts program," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(3), pages 410-435, August.
    15. Pennings, Clint L.P. & van Dalen, Jan & Rook, Laurens, 2019. "Coordinating judgmental forecasting: Coping with intentional biases," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 46-56.
    16. 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.
    17. Siebert, Johannes Ulrich & Kunz, Reinhard E. & Rolf, Philipp, 2021. "Effects of decision training on individuals’ decision-making proactivity," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 294(1), pages 264-282.
    18. Gregory Weitzner, 2024. "Reputational Algorithm Aversion," Papers 2402.15418, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2024.
    19. Sroginis, Anna & Fildes, Robert & Kourentzes, Nikolaos, 2023. "Use of contextual and model-based information in adjusting promotional forecasts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(3), pages 1177-1191.
    20. Vincent Berthet & David Autissier & Vincent de Gardelle, 2022. "Individual differences in decision-making: A test of a one-factor model of rationality," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) hal-03532489, HAL.
    21. Thomson, Mary E. & Pollock, Andrew C. & Gönül, M. Sinan & Önkal, Dilek, 2013. "Effects of trend strength and direction on performance and consistency in judgmental exchange rate forecasting," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 337-353.

    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:oup:jconrs:v:46:y:2019:i:4:p:629-650.. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jcr .

    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.