Rapid development and adoption of AI, machine learning, and natural language processing applications challenge managers and policy makers to harness these transformative technologies. In this context, the authors provide evidence of a novel “word-of-machine” effect, the phenomenon by which utilitarian/hedonic attribute trade-offs determine preference for, or resistance to, AI-based recommendations compared with traditional word of mouth, or human-based recommendations. The word-of-machine effect stems from a lay belief that AI recommenders are more competent than human recommenders in the utilitarian realm and less competent than human recommenders in the hedonic realm. As a consequence, importance or salience of utilitarian attributes determine preference for AI recommenders over human ones, and importance or salience of hedonic attributes determine resistance to AI recommenders over human ones (Studies 1–4). The word-of machine effect is robust to attribute complexity, number of options considered, and transaction costs. The word-of-machine effect reverses for utilitarian goals if a recommendation needs matching to a person’s unique preferences (Study 5) and is eliminated in the case of human–AI hybrid decision making (i.e., augmented rather than artificial intelligence; Study 6). An intervention based on the consider-the-opposite protocol attenuates the word-of-machine effect (Studies 7a–b).
AlbaJoseph W.WilliamsElanor F. (2013), “Pleasure Principles: A Review of Research on Hedonic Consumption,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23 (1), 2–18.
2.
AllisonRalph I.UhlKenneth P. (1964), “Influence of Beer Brand Identification on Taste Perception,” Journal of Marketing Research, 1 (3), 36–39.
BatraRajeevAhtolaOlli T. (1991), “Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Sources of Consumer Attitudes,” Marketing Letters, 2 (4), 159–70.
5.
BazermanMax H.TenbrunselAnn E.Wade-BenzoniKimberly (1998), “Negotiating with Yourself and Losing: Understanding and Managing Conflicting Internal Preferences,” Academy of Management Review, 23 (2), 225–41.
6.
BhargaveRajeshChakravartiAmitavGuhaAbhijit (2015), “Two-Stage Decisions Increase Preference for Hedonic Options,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 130, 123–35.
7.
BoatsmanJamesMoeckelCindyPeiBuck K.W. (1997), “The Effects of Decision Consequences on Auditors’ Reliance on Decision Aids in Audit Planning,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71 (2), 211–47.
8.
BottiSimonaMcGillAnn L. (2011), “Locus of Choice: Personal Causality and Satisfaction with Hedonic and Utilitarian Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (4), 1065–78.
9.
CasteloNoahBosMaarten W.LehmanDonald R. (2019), “Task-Dependent Algorithm Aversion,” Journal of Marketing Research, 56 (5), 809–25.
10.
CianLucaLongoniChiaraKrishnaAradhna (2020), “Advertising a Desired Change: When Process Simulation Fosters (vs. Hinders) Credibility and Persuasion,” Journal of Marketing Research, 57 (3), 489–508.
11.
CrowleyAyn E.SpangenbergEric R.HughesKevin R. (1991), “Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Dimensions of Attitudes Toward Product Categories,” Marketing Letters, 3 (3), 239–49.
12.
DawesRobyn M. (1979), “The Robust Beauty of Improper Linear Models in Decision Making,” American Psychologist, 34 (7), 571–82.
13.
DharRaviWertenbrochKlaus (2000), “Consumer Choice Between Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods,” Journal of Marketing Research, 37 (1), 60–71.
14.
DietvorstBerkeley J.SimmonsJoseph P.MasseyCade (2014), “Algorithm Aversion: People Erroneously Avoid Algorithms After Seeing Them Err,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144 (1), 114–26.
15.
DietvorstBerkeley J.SimmonsJoseph P.MasseyCade (2016), “Overcoming Algorithm Aversion: People Will Use Imperfect Algorithms If They Can (Even Slightly) Modify Them,” Management Science, 64 (3), 1155–70.
16.
FrankeNikolausKeinzPeterStegerChristoph J. (2009), “Testing the Value of Customization: When Do Customers Really Prefer Products Tailored to Their Preferences?” Journal of Marketing, 73 (5), 103–21.
17.
GroveWilliam M.MeehlPaul E. (1996), “Comparative Efficiency of Informal (Subjective, Impressionistic) and Formal (Mechanical, Algorithmic) Prediction Procedures: The Clinical-Statistical Controversy,” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2 (2), 293–323.
HighhouseScott (2008) “Stubborn Reliance on Intuition and Subjectivity in Employee Selection,” Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1 (3), 333–42.
20.
HirschmanElizabeth C.HolbrookMorris B. (1982), “Hedonic Consumption: Emerging Concepts, Methods, and Propositions,” Journal of Marketing, 46 (3), 92–101.
21.
HolbrookMorris B. (1994), “The Nature of Customer Value,” in Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice, RustRoland T.OliverRichard L., eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 21–71.
22.
KhanUzmaDharRavi (2010), “Price-Framing Effects on the Purchase of Hedonic and Utilitarian Bundles,” Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (6), 1090–99.
23.
KhanUzmaDharRaviWertenbrochKlaus (2005), “A Behavioral Decision Theory Perspective on Hedonic and Utilitarian Choice,” in Inside Consumption: Frontiers of Research on Consumer Motives, Goals, & Desires, RatneshwarS.MickDavid Glen, eds. Abingdon-on-Thames, UK: Routledge, 144–65.
24.
LeungEuginaPaolacciGabrielePuntoniStefano (2019), “Man Versus Machine: Resisting Automation in Identity-Based Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Marketing Research, 55 (6), 818–31.
25.
LittrellMary A.MillerNancy J. (2001), “Marketing Across Cultures: Consumers’ Perceptions of Product Complexity, Familiarity, and Compatibility,” Journal of Global Marketing, 15 (1), 67–86.
26.
LoggJennifer M.MinsonJuliaMooreDan A. (2019), “Algorithm Appreciation: People Prefer Algorithmic to Human Judgment,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 151, 90–103.
27.
LongoniChiaraBonezziAndreaMorewedgeCarey K. (2019), “Resistance to Medical Artificial Intelligence,” Journal of Consumer Research, 46 (4), 629–50.
28.
LongoniChiaraBonezziAndreaMorewedgeCarey K. (2020), “Resistance to Medical Artificial Intelligence is an Attribute in a Compensatory Decision Process: Response to Pezzo and Beckstead,” Judgment and Decision Making, 15 (3), 446–48.
29.
LordCharles G.LepperMark R.PrestonElizabeth (1984), “Considering the Opposite: A Corrective Strategy for Social Judgment,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47 (6), 1231–43.
30.
MeehlPaul (1954), Clinical Versus Statistical Prediction: A Theoretical Analysis and Review of the Literature. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
31.
MoreauC. PageHerdKelly B. (2009), “To Each His Own? How Comparisons with Others Influence Consumers’ Evaluations of Their Self-Designed Products,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (5), 806–19.
32.
MorrisMichael W.MenonTanyaAmesDaniel R. (2001), “Culturally Conferred Conception of Agency: A Key to Social Perception of Persona, Groups, and Other Actors,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5 (2), 169–82.
33.
MusselweilerThomasStrackFritzPfeifferTim (2000), “Overcoming the Inevitable Anchoring Effect: Considering the Opposite Compensates for Selective Accessibility,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26 (9), 1142–50.
34.
OkadaErica M. (2005), “Justification Effects on Consumer Choice of Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods,” Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (2), 43–53.
35.
OrdabayevaNailyaChandonPierre (2016), “In the Eye of the Beholder: Visual Biases in Package and Portion Size Perceptions,” Appetite, 103, 450–57.
36.
RossLeeNisbettRichard E. (1991), The Person and the Situation: Perspectives of Social Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
37.
SandersNada R.ManrodtKarl B. (2003), “The Efficacy of Using Judgmental Versus Quantitative Forecasting Methods in Practice,” The International Journal of Management Science, 31 (6), 511–22.
38.
SchweidelDavidBartYakovInmanJeffStephenAndrewLibaiBarakAndrewsMichelle, et al. (2020), “In the Zone: How Technology Is Reshaping the Customer Journey,” working paper.
39.
SpillerStephen AFitzsimonsGavan J.LynchJohn G.Jr.McClellandGary H.. (2013), “Spotlights, Floodlights, and the Magic Number Zero: Simple Effects Tests in Moderated Regression,” Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (2), 277–88.
40.
TimmermansDanielle (1993), “The Impact of Task Complexity on Information Use in Multi-Attribute Decision Making,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 6 (2), 95–111.
41.
VenkatesanRajkumarLecinskiJim (2020), The AI Marketing Canvas: A Five Stage Roadmap to Implementing Artificial Intelligence in Marketing. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.
42.
WardleJaneSolomonsWendy (1994), “Naughty but Nice: A Laboratory Study of Health Information and Food Preferences,” Health Psychology, 13 (2), 180–83.
43.
WasonP.C.GoldingEvelyn (1974), “The Language of Inconsistency,” British Journal of Psychology, 65 (4), 537–46.
44.
WhitleySara C.TrudelRemiKurtDidem (2018), “The Influence of Purchase Motivation on Perceived Preference Uniqueness and Assortment Size Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 45 (4), 710–24.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
