Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Producers and creators often receive assistance with work from other people. Increasingly, algorithms can provide similar assistance. When algorithms assist or augment producers, does this change individuals’ willingness to assign credit to those producers? Across four studies spanning several domains (e.g., painting, construction, sports analytics, and entrepreneurship), we find evidence that producers receive more credit for work when they are assisted by algorithms, compared with humans. We also find that individuals assume algorithmic assistance requires more producer oversight than human assistance does, a mechanism that explains these higher attributions of credit (Studies 1–3). The greater credit individuals assign to producers assisted by algorithms (vs. other people) also manifests itself in increased support for those producers’ entrepreneurial endeavors (Study 4). As algorithms proliferate, norms of credit and authorship are likely changing, precipitating a variety of economic and social consequences.

Keywords

algorithms authorship authenticity credit technology

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Barthes

(2001). The death of the author. Contributions in Philosophy, 83, 3–8.

Biernat

Sesko

A. K.

(2013). Evaluating the contributions of members of mixed-sex work teams: Race and gender matter. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 471–476.

Bigman

Y. E.

Gray

(2018). People are averse to machines making moral decisions. Cognition, 181, 21–34.

Brynjolfsson

McAfee

(2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. W.W. Norton & Company.

Carroll

G. R.

Kovács

(2021). Authenticity: Meanings, targets, audiences and third parties. Research in Organizational Behavior, 41, 100–149.

Castelo

Bos

M. W.

Lehmann

D. R.

(2019). Task-dependent algorithm aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 56, 809–825.

Colquitt

J. A.

(2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400.

Deep Dream Generator. (2022). https://deepdreamgenerator.com/

Dietvorst

B. J.

Simmons

J. P.

Massey

(2015). Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 144, 114–126.

10.

Dutton

(2003). Authenticity in art. In Levinson

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of aesthetics (pp. 258–274). Oxford Academic.

11.

Edison

S. W.

Geissler

G. L.

(2003). Measuring attitudes towards general technology: Antecedents, hypotheses and scale development. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 12, 137–156.

12.

Foucault

(2017). What is an author? In D. Goldblatt, L.B. Brown, & S. Patridge (Eds.), Aesthetics (pp. 284–288). Routledge.

13.

Gray

H. M.

Gray

Wegner

D. M.

(2007). Dimensions of mind perception. Science, 315, 619–619.

14.

Growth Science. (2022). https://www.growthsci.com/

15.

Heilman

M. E.

Haynes

M. C.

(2005). No credit where credit is due: Attributional rationalization of women’s success in male-female teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 905–916.

16.

Jago

A. S.

Carroll

G. R.

Lin

(2022). Generating authenticity in automated work. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 28, 52–70.

17.

Jago

A. S.

Laurin

(2022). Assumptions about algorithms’ capacity for discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 48, 582–595.

18.

Jauregui

(1996). Rembrandt portraits: Economic negligence in art attribution. UCLA Law Review, 44, 1947–2011.

19.

Lehman

D. W.

O’Connor

Kovács

Newman

G. E.

(2019). Authenticity. Academy of Management Annals, 13, 1–42.

20.

Logg

J. M.

(2022). The psychology of Big Data: Developing a “theory of machine” to examine perceptions of algorithms. In Matz

S. C.

(Ed.), The psychology of technology: Social science research in the age of Big Data (pp. 349–378). American Psychological Association.

21.

Longoni

Bonezzi

Morewedge

C. K.

(2019). Resistance to medical artificial intelligence. Journal of Consumer Research, 46, 629–650.

22.

Maglio

S. J.

Wong

Rabaglia

C. D.

Polman

Reich

Huang

J. Y.

Hershfield

H. E.

Lane

S. P.

(2020). Perceptions of Collaborations: How many cooks seem to spoil the broth? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11, 236–243.

23.

Midjourney. (2022). midjourney.com

24.

Neuendorf

(2016, July 14). Art demystified: Why do contemporary artists use so many studio assistants? Artnet News.

25.

Newman

D. T.

Fast

N. J.

Harmon

D. J.

(2020). When eliminating bias isn’t fair: Algorithmic reductionism and procedural justice in human resource decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 160, 149–167.

26.

Newman

G. E.

Bloom

(2012). Art and authenticity: The importance of originals in judgments of value. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 141, 558–569.

27.

Newman

G. E.

Smith

R. K.

(2016). Kinds of authenticity. Philosophy Compass, 1, 609–618.

28.

O’Connor

(2005). Embodied knowledge: The experience of meaning and the struggle towards proficiency in glassblowing. Ethnography, 6, 183–204.

29.

OpenAI. (2022). https://openai.com/api/

30.

Phillips

(1997). Exhibiting authenticity. Manchester University Press.

31.

Potter

(2011). The authenticity hoax. Emblem Editions.

32.

Raisch

Krakowski

(2021). Artificial intelligence and management: The automation–augmentation paradox. Academy of Management Review, 46, 192–210.

33.

Reich

Kaju

Maglio

(2022). How to overcome algorithm aversion: Learning from mistakes. Forthcoming in Journal of Consumer Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1313

34.

Saunders

(1993). Making art, making artists. Art in America, 81, 70–95.

35.

Sesser

(2011, June 3). The art assembly line. The Wall Street Journal.

36.

Simonsohn

(2014, March 12). No-way interactions. Data Collada. http://datacolada.org/17

37.

Smith

R. K.

Newman

G. E.

(2014). When multiple creators are worse than one: The bias toward single authors in the evaluation of art. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 303–310.

38.

Spencer

S. J.

Zanna

M. P.

Fong

G. T.

(2005). Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 845–851.

39.

Waytz

Cacioppo

Epley

(2010). Who sees human? The stability and importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 219–232.

40.

Waytz

Norton

M. I.

(2014). Botsourcing and outsourcing: Robot, British, Chinese, and German workers are for thinking—not feeling—jobs. Emotion, 14, 434–444.

41.

Wheelock

A. K.

Jr. (2014). Issues of attribution in the Rembrandt workshop. Dutch Paintings of the Seventeenth Century, NGA Online Editions.

42.

Wilson

(2004). Foucault on the “Question of the author”: A critical exegesis. Modern Language Review, 99, 339–363.

43.

(2020, May 26). When is the artist assistant just the artist? Vice.

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.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB

Who Made This? Algorithms and Authorship Credit

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material