A systematic review of algorithm aversion in augmented decision making

Despite abundant literature theorizing societal implications of algorithmic decision making, relatively little is known about the conditions that lead to the acceptance or rejection of algorithmically generated insights by individual users of decision aids. More specifically, recent findings of algo...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of behavioral decision making Vol. 33; no. 2; pp. 220 - 239
Main Authors Burton, Jason W., Stein, Mari‐Klara, Jensen, Tina Blegind
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Chichester Wiley Periodicals Inc 01.04.2020
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Despite abundant literature theorizing societal implications of algorithmic decision making, relatively little is known about the conditions that lead to the acceptance or rejection of algorithmically generated insights by individual users of decision aids. More specifically, recent findings of algorithm aversion—the reluctance of human forecasters to use superior but imperfect algorithms—raise questions about whether joint human‐algorithm decision making is feasible in practice. In this paper, we systematically review the topic of algorithm aversion as it appears in 61 peer‐reviewed articles between 1950 and 2018 and follow its conceptual trail across disciplines. We categorize and report on the proposed causes and solutions of algorithm aversion in five themes: expectations and expertise, decision autonomy, incentivization, cognitive compatibility, and divergent rationalities. Although each of the presented themes addresses distinct features of an algorithmic decision aid, human users of the decision aid, and/or the decision making environment, apparent interdependencies are highlighted. We conclude that resolving algorithm aversion requires an updated research program with an emphasis on theory integration. We provide a number of empirical questions that can be immediately carried forth by the behavioral decision making community.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
content type line 14
ObjectType-Feature-3
ObjectType-Evidence Based Healthcare-1
ISSN:0894-3257
1099-0771
DOI:10.1002/bdm.2155