It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
We explore aversion to the use of algorithms in moral decision-making. So far, this aversion has been explained mainly by the fear of opaque decisions that are potentially biased. Using incentivized experiments, we study which role the desire for human discretion in moral decision-making plays. This seems justified in light of evidence suggesting that people might not doubt the quality of algorithmic decisions, but still reject them. In our first study, we found that people prefer humans with decision-making discretion to algorithms that rigidly apply exogenously given human-created fairness principles to specific cases. In the second study, we found that people do not prefer humans to algorithms because they appreciate flesh-and-blood decision-makers per se, but because they appreciate humans’ freedom to transcend fairness principles at will. Our results contribute to a deeper understanding of algorithm aversion. They indicate that emphasizing the transparency of algorithms that clearly follow fairness principles might not be the only element for fostering societal algorithm acceptance and suggest reconsidering certain features of the decision-making process.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details

1 Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies, Halle, Germany (GRID:grid.425200.1) (ISNI:0000 0001 1019 1339)
2 Technical University of Ingolstadt, Ingolstadt, Germany (GRID:grid.425200.1)
3 Technical University of Munich, TUM School of Social Sciences and Technology, München, Germany (GRID:grid.6936.a) (ISNI:0000000123222966); Technische Hochschule Ingolstadt, Research Group “Ethics of Digitization”, Faculty of Informatics, Ingolstadt, Germany (GRID:grid.454235.1) (ISNI:0000 0000 9806 2445); National Research University Higher School of Economics, International Laboratory for Experimental and Behavioural Economics, Moscow, Russia (GRID:grid.410682.9) (ISNI:0000 0004 0578 2005)