Overcoming Algorithm Aversion: People Will Use Imperfect Algorithms If They Can (Even Slightly) Modify Them

Berkeley J. Dietvorst; Joseph P. Simmons; Cade Massey

doi:10.1287/mnsc.2016.2643

journal article Mar 01, 2018

Overcoming Algorithm Aversion: People Will Use Imperfect Algorithms If They Can (Even Slightly) Modify Them

Berkeley J. Dietvorst

Joseph P. Simmons Cade Massey

Management Science Vol. 64 No. 3 pp. 1155-1170 · Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS)

View at Publisher Save 10.1287/mnsc.2016.2643

Abstract

Although evidence-based algorithms consistently outperform human forecasters, people often fail to use them after learning that they are imperfect, a phenomenon known as algorithm aversion. In this paper, we present three studies investigating how to reduce algorithm aversion. In incentivized forecasting tasks, participants chose between using their own forecasts or those of an algorithm that was built by experts. Participants were considerably more likely to choose to use an imperfect algorithm when they could modify its forecasts, and they performed better as a result. Notably, the preference for modifiable algorithms held even when participants were severely restricted in the modifications they could make (Studies 1–3). In fact, our results suggest that participants’ preference for modifiable algorithms was indicative of a desire for some control over the forecasting outcome, and not for a desire for greater control over the forecasting outcome, as participants’ preference for modifiable algorithms was relatively insensitive to the magnitude of the modifications they were able to make (Study 2). Additionally, we found that giving participants the freedom to modify an imperfect algorithm made them feel more satisfied with the forecasting process, more likely to believe that the algorithm was superior, and more likely to choose to use an algorithm to make subsequent forecasts (Study 3). This research suggests that one can reduce algorithm aversion by giving people some control—even a slight amount—over an imperfect algorithm’s forecast. Data, as supplemental material, are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2643 . This paper was accepted by Yuval Rottenstreich, judgment and decision making.

Topics

No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →

References

26

[1]

10.1136/bmj.293.6550.800

[2]

10.1126/scitranslmed.3002564

[3]

10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.07.001

[4]

10.1287/mnsc.29.5.559

[5]

10.1037/h0030868

[6]

10.1037/0003-066x.34.7.571

[7]

Clinical Versus Actuarial Judgment

Robyn M. Dawes, David Faust, Paul E. Meehl

Science 10.1126/science.2648573

[8]

Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err.

Berkeley J. Dietvorst, Joseph P. Simmons, Cade Massey

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 10.1037/xge0000033

[9]

10.1207/s15327752jpa5003_8

[10]

10.1287/inte.1070.0309

[11]

Effective forecasting and judgmental adjustments: an empirical evaluation and strategies for improvement in supply-chain planning

Robert Fildes, Paul Goodwin, Konstantinos Nikolopoulos

International Journal of Forecasting 10.1016/j.ijforecast.2008.11.010

[12]

The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits

Melissa L. Finucane, Ali Alhakami, Paul Slovic et al.

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 10.1002/(sici)1099-0771(200001/03)13:1<1::aid-bdm333>3.0.co;2-s

[13]

10.1002/(sici)1099-0771(199903)12:1<37::aid-bdm319>3.0.co;2-8

[14]

10.1037/1040-3590.12.1.19

[15]

10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.00058.x

[16]

10.1287/mnsc.27.2.115

[17]

Judgmental forecasting: A review of progress over the last 25years

Paul Goodwin, Marcus O'Connor, Dilek Onkal

International Journal of Forecasting 10.1016/j.ijforecast.2006.03.007

[18]

10.1002/bdm.3960080302

[19]

10.1037/11281-000

[20]

Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models

Kristopher J. Preacher, Andrew F. Hayes

Behavior Research Methods 10.3758/brm.40.3.879

[21]

10.1016/j.omega.2003.08.007

[22]

10.1287/mnsc.46.3.404.12070

[23]

10.2307/1139334

[24]

10.1037/a0014693

[25]

10.1016/0169-2070(91)90049-2

[26]

10.1177/0093854884011001001

Cited By

933

Aversion to Hiring Algorithms: Transparency, Gender Profiling, and Self-Confidence

Marie-Pierre Dargnies, Rustamdjan Hakimov · 2026

Management Science

Staying or leaving? A person-centred view of algorithmic management and gig worker attrition

Nastaran Hajiheydari, Mohammad Soltani Delgosha · 2026

Journal of Business Research

Giving AI a Human Touch: Highlighting Human Input Increases the Perceived Helpfulness of Advice from AI Coaches

Yue Zhang, Mirjam A. Tuk · 2024

Journal of the Association for Cons...

Prejudiced against the Machine? Implicit Associations and the Transience of Algorithm Aversion

Ofir Turel, Shivam Kalhan · 2023

MIS Quarterly

People Perceive Algorithmic Assessments as Less Fair and Trustworthy Than Identical Human Assessments

Lillio Mok, Sasha Nanda · 2023

Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Com...

Applicants’ Fairness Perceptions of Algorithm-Driven Hiring Procedures

Maude Lavanchy, Patrick Reichert · 2023

Journal of Business Ethics

No Thanks, Dear AI! Understanding the Effects of Disclosure and Deployment of Artificial Intelligence in Public Sector Recruitment

Florian Keppeler · 2023

Journal of Public Administration Re...

What influences algorithmic decision-making? A systematic literature review on algorithm aversion

Hasan Mahmud, A.K.M. Najmul Islam · 2022

Technological Forecasting and Socia...

Algorithmic versus Human Advice: Does Presenting Prediction Performance Matter for Algorithm Appreciation?

Sangseok You, Cathy Liu Yang · 2022

Journal of Management Information S...

Preference for human, not algorithm aversion

Carey K. Morewedge · 2022

Trends in Cognitive Sciences

Blame the Machine? Insights From an Experiment on Algorithm Aversion and Blame Avoidance in Computer-Aided Human Resource Management

Christian Maasland, Kristina S. Weißmüller · 2022

Frontiers in Psychology

AI and Procurement

Ruomeng Cui, Meng Li · 2022

Manufacturing & Service Operati...

Predicting Human Discretion to Adjust Algorithmic Prescription: A Large-Scale Field Experiment in Warehouse Operations

Jiankun Sun, Dennis J. Zhang · 2022

Management Science

Reducing algorithm aversion through experience

Ibrahim Filiz, Jan René Judek · 2021

Journal of Behavioral and Experimen...

Who is the Expert? Reconciling Algorithm Aversion and Algorithm Appreciation in AI-Supported Decision Making

Yoyo Tsung-Yu Hou, Malte F. Jung · 2021

Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Com...

To err is human, not algorithmic – Robust reactions to erring algorithms

Laetitia A. Renier, Marianne Schmid Mast · 2021

Computers in Human Behavior

Watch Me Improve—Algorithm Aversion and Demonstrating the Ability to Learn

Benedikt Berger, Martin Adam · 2020

Business & Information Systems...

Field Experiment on the Profit Implications of Merchants’ Discretionary Power to Override Data-Driven Decision-Making Tools

Saravanan Kesavan, Tarun Kushwaha · 2020

Management Science

Metrics

933

Citations

26

References

Details

Published: Mar 01, 2018
Vol/Issue: 64(3)
Pages: 1155-1170

Authors

B

Berkeley J. Dietvorst

Booth School of Business, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637

J

Joseph P. Simmons

The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104

C

Cade Massey

The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104

Cite This Article

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, 64(3), 1155-1170. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2643

Overcoming Algorithm Aversion: People Will Use Imperfect Algorithms If They Can (Even Slightly) Modify Them

You May Also Like