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. Marc Vanhuele & Barbara Kahn, 1997. "Examining Medical Decision Making from a Marketing Perspective," Post-Print hal-00457577, HAL.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Ulf Böckenholt & Elke U. Weber, 1992. "Use of formal Methods in Medical Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 12(4), pages 298-306, December.
    9. Sancy A. Leachman & Glenn Merlino, 2017. "The final frontier in cancer diagnosis," Nature, Nature, vol. 542(7639), pages 36-38, February.
    10. 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.
    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. 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.
    3. 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.
    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. 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).
    8. Fasolo, Barbara & Heard, Claire & Scopelliti, Irene, 2024. "Mitigating cognitive bias to improve organizational decisions: an integrative review, framework, and research agenda," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 125404, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. Leitner, Johannes & Leopold-Wildburger, Ulrike, 2011. "Experiments on forecasting behavior with several sources of information - A review of the literature," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 213(3), pages 459-469, September.
    10. 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.
    11. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1392-1412 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. 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.
    13. Kausel, Edgar E. & Culbertson, Satoris S. & Madrid, Hector P., 2016. "Overconfidence in personnel selection: When and why unstructured interview information can hurt hiring decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 27-44.
    14. 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.
    15. Alexander P. Henkel & Johannes Boegershausen & Robert Ciuchita & Gaby Odekerken-Schröder, 2017. "Storm after the Quiet: How Marketplace Interactions Shape Consumer Resources in Collective Goal Pursuits," Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 2(1), pages 26-47.
    16. 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.
    17. Mauldin, Elaine G. & Ruchala, Linda V., 1999. "Towards a meta-theory of accounting information systems," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 317-331, May.
    18. 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.
    19. Crié, Dominique & Chebat, Jean-Charles, 2013. "Health marketing: Toward an integrative perspective," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 123-126.
    20. 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.
    21. 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.

    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.