AI · Multiple behavioral experiments.

Task-dependent algorithm aversion

Journal of Marketing Research · 2019

Castelo, N., Bos, M. W., Lehmann, D. R.

Original paper ↗

Summary

Algorithm aversion is stronger for subjective than objective tasks.

For your marketing

Possible founder application

Match automation positioning and controls to task subjectivity.

Reported result

What the study found

Algorithm aversion is stronger for subjective than objective tasks.

Research question

What the authors investigated

When do people accept or reject algorithmic advice?

Design

Multiple behavioral experiments.

Sample and setting

People evaluating human versus algorithmic advice across task types.

Scope and transfer

Limitations to keep in view

Laboratory/vignette tasks.

Research sources

Publisher abstract/full text supports the reported design, sample, and findings.

Additional research source ↗

Study strength

3.5/5 Abstract-level evidence is useful for framing questions; verify full methods before transfer.

How this was assessed

The 1–5 evidence-check score is a practical reading aid, not a formal peer review or a probability that a conclusion is true. It combines design strength (2 points), sample reporting (1), comparison/control clarity (1), and how much of the paper could be checked (1). Access affects how confidently this directory can assess a study, not the study's underlying quality. Blinding is reported separately because it is not relevant to every design.

Design transparency · 2/2

Based on the reported study design in the retrieved source.

Sample and setting · 1/1

The sample context is stated; a numerical count is preserved only when reported.

Outcome clarity · 1/1

The finding is summarized from publisher or article metadata.

Access for checking · 0.5/1

Only abstract or bibliographic access was confirmed.

Double-blind? The retrieved publisher record does not establish whether participants or outcome assessors were blinded.

Read the paper