Artificial intelligence (AI) is pervading the government and transforming how public services are provided to consumers across policy areas spanning allocation of government benefits, law enforcement, risk monitoring, and the provision of services. Despite technological improvements, AI systems are fallible and may err. How do consumers respond when learning of AI failures? In 13 preregistered studies (N = 3,724) across a range of policy areas, the authors show that algorithmic failures are generalized more broadly than human failures. This effect is termed “algorithmic transference” as it is an inferential process that generalizes (i.e., transfers) information about one member of a group to another member of that same group. Rather than reflecting generalized algorithm aversion, algorithmic transference is rooted in social categorization: it stems from how people perceive a group of AI systems versus a group of humans. Because AI systems are perceived as more homogeneous than people, failure information about one AI algorithm is transferred to another algorithm to a greater extent than failure information about a person is transferred to another person. Capturing AI's impact on consumers and societies, these results show how the premature or mismanaged deployment of faulty AI technologies may undermine the very institutions that AI systems are meant to modernize.
AIAAIC (2022), “AIAAIC Repository,” (accessed May 30, 2022), https://www.aiaaic.org/aiaaic-repository.
3.
AwadEdmondLevineSydneyKleiman-WeinerMaxDsouzaSohanTenenbaumJoshua B.ShariffAzim, et al. (2020), “Drivers Are Blamed More Than Their Automated Cars When Both Make Mistakes,” Nature Human Behaviour, 4 (2), 134–43.
4.
AydınoğluNilüferCianLuca (2014), “Show Me the Product, Show Me the Model: Effect of Picture Type on Attitudes Toward Advertising,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24 (4), 506–19.
5.
BergerBenediktAdamMartinRührAlexanderBenlianAlexander (2021), “Watch Me Improve—Algorithm Aversion and Demonstrating the Ability to Learn,” Business & Information Systems Engineering, 63 (1), 55–68.
6.
BigmanYochanan E.YamKai C.MarcianoDéboraReynoldsScott J.GrayKurt (2021), “Threat of Racial and Economic Inequality Increases Preference for Algorithm Decision-Making,” Computers in Human Behavior, 122 (8), 106859.
7.
BorauSylvieOtterbringTobiasLaporteSandraWambaSamuel Fosso (2021), “The Most Human Bot: Female Gendering Increases Humanness Perceptions of Bots and Acceptance of AI,” Psychology & Marketing, 38 (7), 1052–68.
BrewerMarylinn B. (1993), “Social Identity, Distinctiveness, and In-Group Homogeneity,” Social Cognition, 11 (1), 150–64.
10.
CadarioRomainLongoniChiaraMorewedgeCarey K. (2021), “Understanding, Explaining, and Utilizing Medical Artificial Intelligence,” Nature Human Behavior, 5 (12), 1636–42.
11.
CaloRyanCitronDanielle K. (2021), “The Automated Administrative State: A Crisis of Legitimacy,” Emory Law Journal, 70 (4), 797–845.
12.
CasteloNoahBosMaarten W.LehmannDonald R. (2019), “Task-Dependent Algorithm Aversion,” Journal of Marketing Research, 56 (5), 809–25.
13.
CianLucaLongoniChiaraKrishnaAradhna (2020), “Advertising a Desired Change: When Process Simulation Fosters (vs. Hinders) Credibility and Persuasion,” Journal of Marketing Research, 57 (3), 489–508.
14.
De La GarzaAlejandro (2020), “States’ Automated Systems Are Trapping Citizens in Bureaucratic Nightmares with Their Lives on the Line,” Time (May 28), https://time.com/5840609/algorithm-unemployment/.
15.
De SousaWeslei G.de MeloElis Regina PereiraDe Souza BermejoPaulo H.Sousa FariasRafael A.GomesAdalmir O. (2019), “How and Where Is Artificial Intelligence in the Public Sector Going? A Literature Review and Research Agenda,” Government Information Quarterly, 36 (4), 101392.
16.
DietvorstBerkeley J.SimmonsJoe P.MasseyCady (2015), “Algorithm Aversion: People Erroneously Avoid Algorithms After Seeing Them Err,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144 (1), 114–26.
17.
DzinzoletMary T.PierceLindaBeckHall P.DaweLloyd (2002), “The Perceived Utility of Human and Automated Aids in a Visual Detection Task,” Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 44 (1), 79–94.
18.
Executive Office of the President (2020), “Promoting the Use of Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence in the Federal Government,” Executive Order 13960 (December 3), 85 Federal Register 78939, https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2020-27065.
19.
FoggB.J.J.NassClifford (1997), “How Users Reciprocate to Computers: An Experiment That Demonstrates Behavior Change,” in CHI ’97 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 331–32.
20.
GillTripat (2020), “Blame It on the Self-Driving Car: How Autonomous Vehicles Can Alter Consumer Morality,” Journal of Consumer Research, 47 (2), 272–91.
21.
GoodwinHenry (2020), “‘Poorly Designed’ Universal Credit Algorithm Forcing People into Hunger and Debt,” The London Economic (September 29), https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/poorly-designed-universal-credit-algorithm-forcing-people-into-hunger-and-debt-203635/.
22.
GranuloArminFuchsChristophPuntoniStefano (2020), “Preference for Human (vs. Robotic) Labor Is Stronger in Symbolic Consumption Contexts,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 31 (1), 72–80.
23.
HayesAndrew F. (2018), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press.
24.
HoggMichael A.ReidScott A. (2006), “Social Identity, Self-Categorization, and the Communication of Group Norms,” Communication Theory, 16 (1), 7–30.
25.
IrwinMarcTripodiTonyBieriJames (1967), “Affective Stimulus Value and Cognitive Complexity,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5 (4), 444–48.
LinvillePatricia W.FischerGregory W. (1998), “Group Variability and Covariation: Effects on Intergroup Judgment and Behavior,” in Intergroup Cognition and Intergroup Behavior, SedikidesC.InskoChester A., eds. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 123–50.
28.
LoggJennifer M.MinsonJuliaMooreDan A. (2019), “Algorithm Appreciation: People Prefer Algorithmic to Human Judgment,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 151, 90–103.
29.
LongoniChiaraBonezziAndreaMorewedgeCarey K. (2019), “Resistance to Medical Artificial Intelligence,” Journal of Consumer Research, 46 (4), 629–50.
30.
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.
31.
LongoniChiaraCianLuca (2020), “Artificial Intelligence in Utilitarian vs. Hedonic Contexts: The ‘Word-of-Machine’ Effect,” Journal of Marketing, 86 (1), 91–108.
32.
LongoniChiaraFradkinAndreyCianLucaPennycookGordon (2022), “News from Generative Artificial Intelligence Is Believed Less,” in FAccT ’22: 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 97–106.
33.
MeehlPaul, E. (1954), Clinical Versus Statistical Prediction: A Theoretical Analysis and a Review of the Evidence. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
34.
NassCliffordMoonYoungme (2000), “Machines and Mindlessness: Social Response Computers,” Journal of Social Issues, 56 (1), 81–103.
35.
NassCliffordMoonYoungmeGreenNancy (1997), “Are Machines Gender Neutral?” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27 (10), 864–76.
36.
NassCliffordSteuerJonathanTauberEllen R. (1994), “Computers Are Social Actors,” in CHI ’94:Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 72–78.
37.
National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (2021), “Final Report,” (accessed September 14, 2022), https://www.nscai.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Full-Report-Digital-1.pdf.
38.
NisbettRichard E.KrantzDavid H.JepsonChristopherKundaZiva (1983), “The Use of Statistical Heuristics in Everyday Inductive Reasoning,” Psychological Review, 90(4),339–63.
39.
OstromThomas M.SedikidesConstantine (1992), “Outgroup Homogeneity Effects in Natural and Minimal Groups,” Psychological Bulletin, 112 (3), 536–52.
40.
PallaGergelyBarabasiAlbert-LászlóVicsekTamás (2007), “Quantifying Social Group Evolution,” Nature, 446 (7136), 664–67.
41.
ParasuramanAnanthanarayanan (2000), “Technology Readiness Index (TRI) a Multiple-Item Scale to Measure Readiness to Embrace New Technologies,” Journal of Service Research, 2 (4), 307–20.
42.
ParkBernadetteHastieReid (1987), “Perception of Variability in Category Development: Instance- Versus Abstraction-Based Stereotypes,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53 (4), 621–35.
43.
ParkBernadetteJuddCharles M.RyanCarey S. (1991), “Social Categorization and the Representation of Variability Information,” European Review of Social Psychology, 2 (1), 211–45.
44.
PrahlAndrewVan SwolLyn (2017), “Understanding Algorithm Aversion: When Is Advice from Automation Discounted?” Journal of Forecasting, 36 (6), 691–702.
45.
QuattroneGeorge A.JonesEdward E. (1980), “The Perception of Variability Within Ingroups and Outgroups: Implications for the Law of Small Numbers,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38 (1), 141–52.
46.
ReevesByronNassClifford (1996), The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
47.
RoehmMichelle L.TyboutAlice M. (2006), “When Will a Brand Scandal Spill Over, and How Should Competitors Respond?” Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (3), 366–73.
48.
RossenBrentJohnsonKyle J.DeladismaAdelineLindDavid S.LokBenjamin (2008), “Virtual Humans Elicit Skin-Tone Bias Consistent with Real-World Skin-Tone Biases,” in IVA ’08:Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents, Helmut Prendinger, James Lester, and Mitsuru Ishizuka, eds. Berlin: Springer.
49.
RyanRichard M.ConnellJames P. (1989), “Perceived Locus of Causality and Internalization: Examining Reasons for Acting in Two Domains,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57 (5), 749–61.
50.
SedikidesConstantineOstromThomas M. (1993), “Perceptions of Group Variability: Moving from an Uncertain Crawl to a Purposeful Stride,” Social Cognition, 11 (1), 165–74.
51.
SonalPandyaCianLucaVenkatesanRajkumar (2022), “Grocery Shopping for America,” PsyArXiv (September 13), psyarxiv.com/8r23e.
52.
SrinivasanRajiSarial-AbiGülen (2021), “When Algorithms Fail: Consumers’ Responses to Brand Harm Crises Caused by Algorithm Errors,” Journal of Marketing, 85 (5), 74–91.
53.
TajfelHenri (1969), “Cognitive Aspects of Prejudice,” Journal of Social Issues, 25 (4), 79–97.
54.
TayBenedictJungYounboParkTaezoon (2014), “When Stereotypes Meet Robots,” Computers in Human Behavior, 38, 75–84.
55.
TurnerJohn C. (1982), “Towards a Cognitive Redefinition of the Social Group,” in Social Identity and Intergroup Relations, TajfelH., ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 15–36.
56.
WilderDavid A. (1986), “Social Categorization: Implications for Creation and Reduction of Intergroup Conflict,” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 291–355.
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.
