Many policy makers and governmental organizations have started using generative artificial intelligence (AI) to provide advice to individuals. However, prior research paints an unclear picture of individuals’ receptiveness to the outputs generated by AI, relative to those from human advisers. While some studies show that individuals prefer outputs generated by humans over AI, others present an opposite pattern. To reconcile these mixed findings, this research differentiates two perspectives where relative preferences have been widely examined: (1) a bystander perspective, where consumers evaluate the content generated by human versus AI agents, and (2) a decision-maker perspective, where consumers accept recommendations made by the agents. The authors find that although there is a general trend of preferring human advice over AI advice in individual decision-making—exhibiting a “human superiority effect”—there is no significant difference between human and AI content preferences during bystander evaluations. Additionally, psychological distance constitutes an important contextual moderator explaining the relative preference for human versus AI recommendations. Specifically, when decision-making circumstances are perceived to be psychologically distant (e.g., low personal relevance), the human superiority effect is attenuated. Theoretical contributions are discussed, along with practical implications for businesses and governmental organizations.
BankerSachinKhetaniSalil (2019), “Algorithm Overdependence: How the Use of Algorithmic Recommendation Systems Can Increase Risks to Consumer Well-Being,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 38 (4), 500–515.
2.
BankinsSarahFormosaPaulGriepYannickRichardsDeborah (2022), “AI Decision Making with Dignity? Contrasting Workers’ Justice Perceptions of Human and AI Decision Making in a Human Resource Management Context,” Information Systems Frontiers, 24 (3), 857–75.
BigmanYochanan E.GrayKurt (2018), “People Are Averse to Machines Making Moral Decisions,” Cognition, 181, 21–34.
5.
BogertEricSchecterAaronWatsonRichard T. (2021), “Humans Rely More on Algorithms Than Social Influence as a Task Becomes More Difficult,” Scientific Reports, 11 (1), 8028.
6.
BorensteinMichael (2009), “Effect Sizes for Continuous Data,” The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis, 2nd ed., CooperHarrisHedgesLarry V.ValentineJeffrey C., eds. Russell Sage Foundation, 221–35.
7.
BowerAmanda B.LandrethStacy (2001), “Is Beauty Best? Highly Versus Normally Attractive Models in Advertising,” Journal of Advertising, 30 (1), 1–12.
8.
CasteloNoahBosMaarten W.LehmannDonald R. (2019), “Task-Dependent Algorithm Aversion,” Journal of Marketing Research, 56 (5), 809–25.
9.
ChaeBoyounLiXiupingZhuRui (2013), “Judging Product Effectiveness from Perceived Spatial Proximity,” Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (2), 317–35.
10.
ChandranSucharitaMenonGeeta (2004), “When a Day Means More Than a Year: Effects of Temporal Framing on Judgments of Health Risk,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (2), 375–89.
11.
ChernevAlexanderBöckenholtUlfGoodmanJoseph (2015), “Choice Overload: A Conceptual Review and Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25 (2), 333–58.
12.
CheungCindy Man-YeeSiaChoon-LingKuanKevin K.Y. (2012), “Is This Review Believable? A Study of Factors Affecting the Credibility of Online Consumer Reviews from an ELM Perspective,” Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13 (8), 2.
DemmerTheresa RahelKühnapfelCorinnaFingerhutJoergPelowskiMatthew (2023), “Does an Emotional Connection to Art Really Require a Human Artist? Emotion and Intentionality Responses to AI- Versus Human-Created Art and Impact on Aesthetic Experience,” Computers in Human Behavior, 148, 107875.
15.
DietvorstBerkeley J.BhartiSoaham (2020), “People Reject Algorithms in Uncertain Decision Domains Because They Have Diminishing Sensitivity to Forecasting Error,” Psychological Science, 31 (10), 1302–14.
16.
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.
DuanJinyunXiaXiaotongVan SwolLyn M. (2018), “Emoticons’ Influence on Advice Taking,” Computers in Human Behavior, 79, 53–58.
19.
ElderRyan S.SchlosserAnn E.PoorMorganXuLidan (2017), “So Close I Can Almost Sense It: The Interplay Between Sensory Imagery and Psychological Distance,” Journal of Consumer Research, 44 (4), 877–94.
20.
Fernandez-DuqueDiegoWifallTimothy (2007), “Actor/Observer Asymmetry in Risky Decision Making,” Judgment and Decision Making, 2 (1), 1–8.
21.
FrelingTraci H.YangZhiyongSainiRiteshItaniOmar S.AbualsamhRyan Rashad (2020), “When Poignant Stories Outweigh Cold Hard Facts: A Meta-Analysis of the Anecdotal Bias,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 160, 51–67.
22.
GraefeAndreasHaimMarioHaarmannBastianBrosiusHans-Bernd (2018), “Readers’ Perception of Computer-Generated News: Credibility, Expertise, and Readability,” Journalism, 19 (5), 595–610.
23.
GranuloArminFuchsChristophPuntoniStefano (2021), “Preference for Human (vs. Robotic) Labor Is Stronger in Symbolic Consumption Contexts,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 31 (1), 72–80.
24.
HayesAndrew F. (2017), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. Guilford Press.
HuangMiaohongKiEyun-Jung (2024), “Examining the Effect of Anthropomorphic Design Cues on Healthcare Chatbots Acceptance and Organization-Public Relationships: Trust in a Warm Human vs. a Competent Machine,” International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 40 (24), 8781–93.
27.
HuangMing-HuiRustRolandMaksimovicVojislav (2019), “The Feeling Economy: Managing in the Next Generation of Artificial Intelligence (AI),” California Management Review, 61 (4), 43–65.
28.
HuangGuanxiongWangSai (2023), “Is Artificial Intelligence More Persuasive Than Humans? A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Communication, 73 (6), 552–62.
29.
JussupowEkaterinaBenbasatIzakHeinzlArmin (2020), “Why Are We Averse Towards Algorithms? A Comprehensive Literature Review on Algorithm Aversion,”Proceedings of the 28th European Conference on Information Systems, https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2020_rp/168.
KarataşMustafaCutrightKeisha M. (2023), “Thinking About God Increases Acceptance of Artificial Intelligence in Decision-Making,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120 (33), e2218961120.
32.
KimTae WooDuhachekAdam (2020), “Artificial Intelligence and Persuasion: A Construal-Level Account,” Psychological Science, 31 (4), 363–80.
33.
KimJihyunXuKunMerrillKellyJr. (2022), “Man vs. Machine: Human Responses to an AI Newscaster and the Role of Social Presence,” Social Science Journal (published online January 28, 2022), https://doi.org/10.1080/03623319.2022.2027163.
LarkinConnorOttenCaitlin DrummondÁrvaiJoseph (2022), “Paging Dr. JARVIS! Will People Accept Advice from Artificial Intelligence for Consequential Risk Management Decisions?” Journal of Risk Research, 25 (4), 407–22.
36.
LeeMin Kyung (2018), “Understanding Perception of Algorithmic Decisions: Fairness, Trust, and Emotion in Response to Algorithmic Management,” Big Data & Society, 5 (1).
37.
LibermanNiraSagristanoMichael D.TropeYaacov (2002), “The Effect of Temporal Distance on Level of Mental Construal,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38 (6), 523–34.
38.
LiuPeggy J.DallasSteven K.FitzsimonsGavan J. (2019), “A Framework for Understanding Consumer Choices for Others,” Journal of Consumer Research, 46 (3), 407–34.
39.
LoCarolyn J.TsarenkoYelenaTojibDewi (2019), “To Tell or Not to Tell? The Roles of Perceived Norms and Self-Consciousness in Understanding Consumers’ Willingness to Recommend Online Secondhand Apparel Shopping,” Psychology & Marketing, 36 (4), 287–304.
40.
LoggJennifer M.MinsonJulia A.MooreDon A. (2019), “Algorithm Appreciation: People Prefer Algorithmic to Human Judgment,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 151, 90–103.
41.
LongoniChiaraBonezziAndreaMorewedgeCarey K. (2019), “Resistance to Medical Artificial Intelligence,” Journal of Consumer Research, 46 (4), 629–50.
42.
LongoniChiaraCianLuca (2022), “Artificial Intelligence in Utilitarian vs. Hedonic Contexts: The ‘Word-of-Machine’ Effect,” Journal of Marketing, 86 (1), 91–108.
43.
LuJingyiXieXiaofeiXuJingzhe (2013), “Desirability or Feasibility,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39 (2), 144–55.
44.
LuoXuemingQinMarco ShaojunFangZhengQuZhe (2021), “Artificial Intelligence Coaches for Sales Agents: Caveats and Solutions,” Journal of Marketing, 85 (2), 14–32.
45.
LuoXuemingTongSiliangFangZhengQuZhe (2019), “Frontiers: Machines vs. Humans: The Impact of Artificial Intelligence Chatbot Disclosure on Customer Purchases,” Marketing Science, 38 (6), 937–47.
46.
MahmudHasanNajmul IslamA.K.M.AhmedSyed IshtiaqueSmolanderKari (2022), “What Influences Algorithmic Decision-Making? A Systematic Literature Review on Algorithm Aversion,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 175, 121390.
MarianiMarcello M.Perez-VegaRodrigoWirtzJochen (2022), “AI in Marketing, Consumer Research and Psychology: A Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda,” Psychology & Marketing, 39 (4), 755–76.
49.
MilkmanKatherine L.RogersToddBazermanMax H. (2010), “I’ll Have the Ice Cream Soon and the Vegetables Later: A Study of Online Grocery Purchases and Order Lead Time,” Marketing Letters, 21, 17–35.
50.
MillerSteve (2023), “Singapore’s AI Applications in the Public Sector: Six Examples,” Management and Business Review, 3 (1–2), 144–55.
51.
MischelWalterBakerNancy (1975), “Cognitive Appraisals and Transformations in Delay Behavior,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31 (2), 254–61.
52.
MontemayorCarlosHalpernJodiFairweatherAbrol (2022), “In Principle Obstacles for Empathic AI: Why We Can’t Replace Human Empathy in Healthcare,” AI & Society, 37 (4), 1353–59.
53.
MoriMasahiroMacDormanKarl F.KagekiNorri (2012), “The Uncanny Valley [from the Field],” IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 19 (2), 98–100.
NewmanDavid T.FastNathanael J.HarmonDerek J. (2020), “When Eliminating Bias Isn’t Fair: Algorithmic Reductionism and Procedural Justice in Human Resource Decisions,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 160, 149–67.
56.
NortheyGavinHunterVanessaMulcahyRoryChoongKellyMehmetMichael (2022), “Man vs Machine: How Artificial Intelligence in Banking Influences Consumer Belief in Financial Advice,” International Journal of Bank Marketing, 40 (6), 1182–99.
57.
OkazakiShintaroMuellerBarbaraTaylorCharles R. (2010), “Measuring Soft-Sell Versus Hard-Sell Advertising Appeals,” Journal of Advertising, 39 (2), 5–20.
58.
PolmanEvan (2012), “Self–Other Decision Making and Loss Aversion,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119 (2), 141–50.
59.
PrahlAndrewVan SwolLyn (2017), “Understanding Algorithm Aversion: When Is Advice from Automation Discounted?” Journal of Forecasting, 36 (6), 691–702.
60.
PuntoniStefanoReczekRebecca WalkerGieslerMarkusBottiSimona (2021), “Consumers and Artificial Intelligence: An Experiential Perspective,” Journal of Marketing, 85 (1), 131–51.
61.
ReadDanielVan LeeuwenBarbara (1998), “Predicting Hunger: The Effects of Appetite and Delay on Choice,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76 (2), 189–205.
RiedelAimeeMulcahyRory Francis (2019), “Does More Sense Make Sense? An Empirical Test of High and Low Interactive Retail Technology,” Journal of Services Marketing, 33 (3), 331–43.
64.
RisenJane L.CritcherClayton R. (2011), “Visceral Fit: While in a Visceral State, Associated States of the World Seem More Likely,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100 (5), 777–93.
65.
RixJenniferRußellRobertRührAlexanderHessThomas (2022), “Human vs. AI: Investigating Consumers’ Context-Dependent Purchase Intentions for Algorithm-Created Content,” Proceedings of the 55th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 4549–58, https://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/95232/.
66.
RodawayPaul (2002), Sensuous Geographies: Body, Sense and Place. Routledge.
67.
RogersToddBazermanMax H. (2008), “Future Lock-In: Future Implementation Increases Selection of ‘Should’ Choices,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 106 (1), 1–20.
68.
SenSedatYildirimIbrahim (2022), “A Tutorial on How to Conduct Meta-Analysis with IBM SPSS Statistics,” Psych, 4 (4), 640–67.
69.
ShenHaoZhangMengKrishnaAradhna (2016), “Computer Interfaces and the ‘Direct-Touch’ Effect: Can iPads Increase the Choice of Hedonic Food?” Journal of Marketing Research, 53 (5), 745–58.
70.
StuckRachel E.HolthausenBrittany E.WalkerBruce N. (2021), “The Role of Risk in Human-Robot Trust,” in Trust in Human-Robot Interaction, NamChang S.LyonsJoseph B., eds. Academic Press, 179–94.
71.
SzpunarKarl K.SchacterDaniel L. (2013), “Get Real: Effects of Repeated Simulation and Emotion on the Perceived Plausibility of Future Experiences,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142 (2), 323.
72.
TassielloVitoTillotsonJack S.RomeAlexandra S. (2021), “‘Alexa, Order Me a Pizza!’: The Mediating Role of Psychological Power in the Consumer–Voice Assistant Interaction,” Psychology & Marketing, 38 (7), 1069–80.
73.
TropeYaacovLibermanNira (2010), “Construal-Level Theory of Psychological Distance,” Psychological Review, 117 (2), 440–63.
74.
TropeYaacovLibermanNiraWakslakCheryl (2007), “Construal Levels and Psychological Distance: Effects on Representation, Prediction, Evaluation, and Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17 (2), 83–95.
75.
WaddellT. Franklin (2018), “A Robot Wrote This?” Digital Journalism, 6 (2), 236–55.
76.
WakslakCheryl J. (2012), “The Where and When of Likely and Unlikely Events,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117 (1), 150–57.
77.
WakslakCheryl J.TropeYaacovLibermanNiraAlonyRotem (2006), “Seeing the Forest When Entry Is Unlikely: Probability and the Mental Representation of Events,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135 (4), 641–53.
78.
WangJinpingMolinaMaria D.SundarS. Shyam (2020), “When Expert Recommendation Contradicts Peer Opinion: Relative Social Influence of Valence, Group Identity and Artificial Intelligence,” Computers in Human Behavior, 107, 106278.
79.
WaytzAdamNortonMichael I. (2014), “Botsourcing and Outsourcing: Robot, British, Chinese, and German Workers Are for Thinking—Not Feeling—Jobs,” Emotion, 14 (2), 434.
80.
WienAnders HaugePelusoAlessandro M. (2021), “Influence of Human Versus AI Recommenders: The Roles of Product Type and Cognitive Processes,” Journal of Business Research, 137, 13–27.
81.
WilliamsLawrence E.BarghJohn A. (2008), “Keeping One’s Distance: The Influence of Spatial Distance Cues on Affect and Evaluation,” Psychological Science, 19 (3), 302–08.
82.
YeomansMichaelShahAnujMullainathanSendhilKleinbergJon (2019), “Making Sense of Recommendations,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 32 (4), 403–14.
83.
YinYidanJiaNanWakslakCheryl J. (2024), “AI Can Help People Feel Heard, but an AI Label Diminishes This Impact,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121 (14), e2319112121.
84.
ZakiJamil (2017), “Moving Beyond Stereotypes of Empathy,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21 (2), 59–60.
ZhangLixuanPentinaIrynaFanYuhong (2021), “Who Do You Choose? Comparing Perceptions of Human vs Robo-Advisor in the Context of Financial Services,” Journal of Services Marketing, 35 (5), 634–46.
87.
ZhangMengWangJing (2009), “Psychological Distance Asymmetry: The Spatial Dimensions vs. Other Dimensions,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19 (3), 497–507.
88.
ZhaoMinXieJinhong (2011), “Effects of Social and Temporal Distance on Consumers’ Responses to Peer Recommendations,” Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (3), 486–96.
89.
ZhouXinyueYanXiaoJiangYuwei (2024), “Making Sense? The Sensory-Specific Nature of Virtual Influencer Effectiveness,” Journal of Marketing, 88 (4), 84–106.
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.
