The Effects of Situational and Individual Factors on Algorithm Acceptance in COVID-19-Related Decision-Making: A Preregistered Online Experiment

Q1 Social Sciences HumanMachine Communication Journal Pub Date : 2021-10-01 DOI:10.30658/hmc.3.3
S. Utz, Lara N. Wolfers, A. Göritz
{"title":"The Effects of Situational and Individual Factors on Algorithm Acceptance in COVID-19-Related Decision-Making: A Preregistered Online Experiment","authors":"S. Utz, Lara N. Wolfers, A. Göritz","doi":"10.30658/hmc.3.3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In times of the COVID-19 pandemic, difficult decisions such as the distribution of ventilators must be made. For many of these decisions, humans could team up with algorithms; however, people often prefer human decision-makers. We examined the role of situational (morality of the scenario; perspective) and individual factors (need for leadership; conventionalism) for algorithm preference in a preregistered online experiment with German adults (n = 1,127). As expected, algorithm preference was lowest in the most moral-laden scenario. The effect of perspective (i.e., decision-makers vs. decision targets) was only significant in the most moral scenario. Need for leadership predicted a stronger algorithm preference, whereas conventionalism was related to weaker algorithm preference. Exploratory analyses revealed that attitudes and knowledge also mattered, stressing the importance of individual factors.","PeriodicalId":34860,"journal":{"name":"HumanMachine Communication Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HumanMachine Communication Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30658/hmc.3.3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

In times of the COVID-19 pandemic, difficult decisions such as the distribution of ventilators must be made. For many of these decisions, humans could team up with algorithms; however, people often prefer human decision-makers. We examined the role of situational (morality of the scenario; perspective) and individual factors (need for leadership; conventionalism) for algorithm preference in a preregistered online experiment with German adults (n = 1,127). As expected, algorithm preference was lowest in the most moral-laden scenario. The effect of perspective (i.e., decision-makers vs. decision targets) was only significant in the most moral scenario. Need for leadership predicted a stronger algorithm preference, whereas conventionalism was related to weaker algorithm preference. Exploratory analyses revealed that attitudes and knowledge also mattered, stressing the importance of individual factors.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
情境和个体因素对新冠肺炎相关决策算法接受度的影响——一项预注册在线实验
在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间,必须做出分发呼吸机等艰难决定。对于其中的许多决策,人类可以与算法合作;然而,人们通常更喜欢人类决策者。我们考察了情境(情境道德)的作用;视角)和个人因素(领导力需求;在德国成年人(n = 1,127)中预先注册的在线实验中,传统主义)对算法偏好的影响。正如预期的那样,在道德负担最重的情况下,算法偏好最低。视角的影响(即决策者vs.决策目标)只在最道德的场景中显著。领导需要预测较强的算法偏好,而传统主义预测较弱的算法偏好。探索性分析表明,态度和知识也很重要,强调了个人因素的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Defining Dialogues: Tracing the Evolution of Human-Machine Communication Who is (communicatively more) responsible behind the wheel? Applying the theory of communicative responsibility to TAM in the context of using navigation technology Archipelagic Human-Machine Communication: Building Bridges amidst Cultivated Ambiguity Triggered by Socialbots: Communicative Anthropomorphization of Bots in Online Conversations Boundary Regulation Processes and Privacy Concerns With (Non-)Use of Voice-Based Assistants
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1