Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/282130 
Year of Publication: 
2023
Series/Report no.: 
Discussion Paper No. 438
Publisher: 
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München und Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Collaborative Research Center Transregio 190 - Rationality and Competition, München und Berlin
Abstract: 
Are people algorithm averse, as some previous literature indicates? If so, can the retention of human oversight increase the uptake of algorithmic recommendations, and does keeping a human in the loop improve accuracy? Answers to these questions are of utmost importance given the fast-growing availability of algorithmic recommendations and current intense discussions about regulation of automated decision-making. In an online experiment, we find that 66% of participants prefer algorithmic to equally accurate human recommendations if the decision is delegated fully. This preference for algorithms increases by further 7 percentage points if participants are able to monitor and adjust the recommendations before the decision is made. In line with automation bias, participants adjust the recommendations that stem from an algorithm by less than those from another human. Importantly, participants are less likely to intervene with the least accurate recommendations and adjust them by less, raising concerns about the monitoring ability of a human in a Human-in-the-Loop system. Our results document a trade-off: while allowing people to adjust algorithmic recommendations increases their uptake, the adjustments made by the human monitors reduce the quality of final decisions.
Subjects: 
automated decision-making
algorithm aversion
algorithm appreciation
automation bias
JEL: 
O33
C90
D90
Document Type: 
Working Paper

Files in This Item:
File
Size
413.22 kB





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.