On the (non-) reliance on algorithms—A decision-theoretic account

A wealth of empirical evidence shows that people display opposite behaviors when deciding whether to rely on an algorithm, even if it is inexpensive to do so and using the algorithm should enhance their own performance. This paper develops a formal theory to explain some of these conflicting facts and submit new testable predictions. Drawing from decision analysis, I invoke two key notions: the ‘value of information’ and the ‘value of control’. The value of information matters to users of algorithms like recommender systems and prediction machines, which essentially provide information. I find that ambiguity aversion or a subjective cost of employing an algorithm will tend to decrease the value of algorithmic information, while repeated exposure to an algorithm might not always increase this value. The value of control matters to users who may delegate decision making to an algorithm. I model how, under partial delegation, imperfect understanding of what the algorithm actually does (so the algorithm is in fact a black box) can cause algorithm aversion. Some possible remedies are formulated and discussed.