As artificial intelligence (AI) transforms society, understanding factors that influence AI receptivity is increasingly important. The current research investigates which types of consumers have greater AI receptivity. Contrary to expectations revealed in four surveys, cross-country data and six additional studies find that people with lower AI literacy are typically more receptive to AI. This lower literacy–greater receptivity link is not explained by differences in perceptions of AI's capability, ethicality, or feared impact on humanity. Instead, this link occurs because people with lower AI literacy are more likely to perceive AI as magical and experience feelings of awe in the face of AI's execution of tasks that seem to require uniquely human attributes. In line with this theorizing, the lower literacy–higher receptivity link is mediated by perceptions of AI as magical and is moderated among tasks not assumed to require distinctly human attributes. These findings suggest that companies may benefit from shifting their marketing efforts and product development toward consumers with lower AI literacy. In addition, efforts to demystify AI may inadvertently reduce its appeal.
BrynjolfssonErikLiDanielleRaymondLindsey R. (2025), “Generative AI at Work,” Quarterly Journal of Economics (published online February 4), https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjae044.
4.
BullockJohn G.GreenDonal P.HaShang E. (2010), “Yes, but What’s the Mechanism? (Don’t Expect an Easy Answer),” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98 (4), 550–58.
5.
CasteloNoahBosMaarten W.LehmannDonald R. (2019), “Task-Dependent Algorithm Aversion,” Journal of Marketing Research, 56 (5), 809–25.
6.
CaveStephenDihalKanta (2019), “Hopes and Fears for Intelligent Machines in Fiction and Reality,” Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(2), 74–78.
7.
ClarkeArthur C. (1968), “Clarke’s Third Law on UFO’s,” Science, 159 (3812), 255.
8.
CotterKelleyReisdorfBianca C. (2020), “Algorithmic Knowledge Gaps: A New Dimension of (Digital) Inequality,” International Journal of Communication, 14, 745–65.
De BellisEmanuelJoharGita V.PolettiNicola (2023), “Meaning of Manual Labor Impedes Consumer Adoption of Autonomous Products,” Journal of Marketing, 87 (6), 949–65.
11.
DietvorstBerkeley J.SimmonsJoseph P.MasseyCade (2015), “Algorithm Aversion: People Erroneously Avoid Algorithms After Seeing Them Err,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144 (1), 114–26.
12.
Digital Moment (2023), “What Is Artificial Intelligence, Algorithm & Data Literacy,” (accessed June 6, 2023), https://algorithmliteracy.org/.
13.
DogruelLeylaMasurPhilippJoeckelSven (2022), “Development and Validation of an Algorithm Literacy Scale for Internet Users,” Communication Methods & Measures, 16 (2), 115–33.
14.
EkrollVebjørnSayimBilgeWagemansJohan (2017), “The Other Side of Magic: The Psychology of Perceiving Hidden Things,” Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12 (1), 91–106.
15.
EpleyNicholasWaytzAdamCacioppoJohn T. (2007), “On Seeing Human: A Three-Factor Theory of Anthropomorphism,” Psychological Review, 114 (4), 864–86.
16.
HargittaiEszterGruberJonathanDjukaricTeodoraFuchsJaelleBrombachLisa (2020), “Black Box Measures? How to Study People’s Algorithm Skills,” Information, Communication & Society, 23 (5), 764–75.
17.
HayesAndrew F. (2017), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. Guilford Publications.
18.
HermannErikPuntoniStefano (2024), “Artificial Intelligence and Consumer Behavior: From Predictive to Generative AI,” Journal of Business Research, 180, 114720.
19.
HermannErikYalcin WilliamsGizemPuntoniStefano (2024), “Deploying Artificial Intelligence in Services to AID Vulnerable Consumers,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 52, 1431–51.
20.
ImaiKosukeKeeleLukeTingleyDustinYamamotoTeppei (2011), “Unpacking the Black Box of Causality: Learning About Causal Mechanisms from Experimental and Observational Studies,” American Political Science Review, 105 (4), 765–89.
KabakusAhmet KamilBahcekapiliEkremAyazAhmet (2023), “The Effect of Digital Literacy on Technology Acceptance: An Evaluation on Administrative Staff in Higher Education,” Journal of Information Science (published online March 15), https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515231160028.
23.
KautishPradeepSiddiquiMujahidSiddiquiAaliyahSharmaVeenuAlshibaniSafiya Mukhtar (2023), “Technology-Enabled Cure and Care: An Application of Innovation Resistance Theory to Telemedicine Apps in an Emerging Market Context,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 192, 122558.
24.
KeltnerDacherHaidtJonathan (2003), “Approaching Awe, a Moral, Spiritual, and Aesthetic Emotion,” Cognition & Emotion, 17 (2), 297–314.
25.
LatzerMichaelFesticNoemiKappelerKiran (2021), “Awareness of Algorithmic Selection and Attitudes in Switzerland,” Report 2 from The Significance of Algorithmic Selection for Everyday Life: The Case of Switzerland, SSRN, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3869792.
26.
LiuNicole T.Y.KirshnerSamuel N.LimEric T.K. (2023), “Is Algorithm Aversion WEIRD? A Cross-Country Comparison of Individual-Differences and Algorithm Aversion,” Journal of Retailing & Consumer Services, 72, 103259.
27.
LongDuriMagerkoBrian (2020), “What Is AI Literacy? Competencies and Design Considerations,” 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376727.
28.
LongoniChiaraCianLuca (2022), “Artificial Intelligence in Utilitarian vs. Hedonic Contexts: The ‘Word-of-Machine’ Effect,” Journal of Marketing, 86 (1), 91–108.
29.
MaslejNestorFattoriniLoredanaBrynjolfssonErikEtchemendyJohnLigettKatrinaLyonsTerahManyikaJamesNgoHelenNieblesJuan CarlosParliVanessaShohamYoavWaldRussellClarkJackPerraultRaymond (2023), “The AI Index 2023 Annual Report,” Institute for Human-Centered AI, Stanford University.
30.
McCarthyJohnMinskyMarvin L.RochesterNathanielShannonClaude E. (2006), “A Proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence,” AI Magazine, 27 (4), 12.
31.
MosierKathleen L.SkitkaLinda J. (2018), “Human Decision Makers and Automated Decision Aids: Made for Each Other?” in Automation and Human Performance: Theory and Applications, Raja Parasuraman and Mustapha Mouloua, eds. CRC Press.
PennycookGordonCannonTyrone D.RandDavid G. (2018), “Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147 (12), 1865.
34.
PuntoniStefanoReczekRebecca W.GieslerMarkusBottiSimona (2021), “Consumers and Artificial Intelligence: An Experiential Perspective,” Journal of Marketing, 85 (1), 131–51.
35.
QuesnelDeniseRieckeBernhard E. (2018), “Are You Awed Yet? How Virtual Reality Gives Us Awe and Goose Bumps,” Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 403078.
36.
RaderEmileeGrayRebecca (2015), “Understanding User Beliefs About Algorithmic Curation in the Facebook News Feed,” in Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, 173–82.
SantoroErikMoninBenoît (2023), “The AI Effect: People Rate Distinctively Human Attributes as More Essential to Being Human After Learning About Artificial Intelligence Advances,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 107, 104464.
SilesIgnacioValerio-AlfaroLucianaMeléndez-MoranAriana (2022), “Learning to Like TikTok… And Not: Algorithm Awareness as Process,” New Media & Society, 26 (10), https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221138973.
41.
SulmontElisabethPatitsasElizabethCooperstockJeremy R. (2019), “Can You Teach Me to Machine Learn?” in Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. Association for Computing Machinery, 948–54.
42.
TomainoGeoffreyAbdulhalimHishamKireyevPavelWertenbrochKlaus (2022), “Denied by an (Unexplainable) Algorithm: Teleological Explanations for Algorithmic Decisions Enhance Customer Satisfaction,” INSEAD Working Paper, https://sites.insead.edu/facultyresearch/research/doc.cfm?&did=66974.
43.
TopolEric (2019), Deep Medicine: How Artificial Intelligence Can Make Healthcare Human Again. Hachette UK.
ValenzuelaAnaPuntoniStefanoHoffmanDonnaCasteloNoahDe FreitasJulianDietvorstBerkeleyHildebrandChristianHuhYoung EunMeyerRobertSweeneyMiriam E.TalaifarSanazTomainoGeoffWertenbrochKlaus (2024), “How Artificial Intelligence Constrains the Human Experience,” Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 9 (3), https://doi.org/10.1086/730709.
47.
VictorinoLianaKarniouchinaEkaterinaVermaRohit (2009), “Exploring the Use of the Abbreviated Technology Readiness Index for Hotel Customer Segmentation,” Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 50 (3), 342–59.
48.
WangHongchangLiChunxiaoGuBinMinWei (2019), “Does AI-Based Credit Scoring Improve Financial Inclusion? Evidence from Online Payday Lending,” 40th International Conference on Information Systems, ICIS 2019 Proceedings, https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2019/blockchain_fintech/blockchain_fintech/20/.
49.
YalcinGizemLimSarahPuntoniStefanovan OsselaerStijn M.J. (2022), “Thumbs Up or Down: Consumer Reactions to Decisions by Algorithms Versus Humans,” Journal of Marketing Research, 59 (4), 696–717.
50.
ZaroualiBrahimBoermanSophie C.de VreeseClaes H. (2021), “Is This Recommended by an Algorithm? The Development and Validation of the Algorithmic Media Content Awareness Scale (AMCA-Scale),” Telematics & Informatics, 62, 101607.
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.
