Abstract:Despite the widespread availability of artificial intelligence (AI) products and services, consumer evaluations and adoption intentions have not met expectations. Existing research mainly focuses on AI's instrumental attributes from the consumer perspective, along with negative impacts of AI failures on evaluations and willingness to use. However, research is lacking on AI as a collaborative agent, investigating the impact of human-AI collaboration on AI acceptance under different outcome expectations. This study examines the interactive effects of human-AI collaboration types (AI-dominant vs. AI-assisted) and outcome expectations (positive vs. negative) on AI product evaluations and usage willingness, along with the underlying mechanisms, from a human-AI relationship perspective. It also investigates the moderating role of algorithm transparency in these effects. Using three online experiments with analysis of variance and bootstrap methods, the study validates these interactive mechanisms, revealing the mediating role of attribution and moderating role of algorithm transparency. Experiment 1 confirms the interactive effects of human-AI collaboration types and outcome expectations on consumer evaluations and usage willingness. Under positive outcome expectations, consumers evaluate and express willingness to use AI-dominant intelligent vehicles with autonomous driving capabilities higher than those with emergency evasion capabilities (AI-assisted). However, under negative outcome expectations, consumers rate autonomous driving capabilities lower compared to emergency evasion capabilities. Experiment 2 examines the mediating role of attribution through ChatGPT's dominant or assisting role under different outcome expectations. Experiment 3 uses a clinical decision-making system to study algorithm transparency's moderating role, showing higher transparency improves evaluations and willingness to use AI products and services under negative outcome expectations. Theoretically, this study advances consumer behavior research by exploring the human-AI relationship within artificial intelligence, enhancing understanding of consumer acceptance variations. Practically, it offers insights for better integrating AI products and services into the market.

Blame Attribution Asymmetry in Human-Automation Cooperation.

Human and machine drivers: Sharing control, sharing responsibility

When both human and machine drivers make mistakes: Whom to blame?

Not in Control, but Liable? Attributing Human Responsibility for Fully Automated Vehicle Accidents

Forecasting the Evolution of Urban Mobility: the Influence of Anthropomorphism and Social Responsiveness in the Transition from Human to Automated Driving

Plenty of blame to go around: Attributions of responsibility in a fatal autonomous vehicle accident

Who is to blame for crashes involving autonomous vehicles? Exploring blame attribution across the road transport system

Why Is Artificial Intelligence Blamed More? Analysis of Faulting Artificial Intelligence for Self-Driving Car Accidents in Experimental Settings

Drivers of partially automated vehicles are blamed for crashes that they cannot reasonably avoid

The Twofold Role of Legal Liability Misattribution on Intention to Buy Automated Vehicles: A Survey in China

The Awkward Middle for Automated Vehicles: Liability Attribution Rules When Humans and Computers Share Driving Responsibilities

Reflections on Automation Complacency

Should I Blame the Human or the Robot? Attribution Within a Human–Robot Group

Playing the Blame Game with Robots

Driving into the Loop: Mapping Automation Bias and Liability Issues for Advanced Driver Assistance Systems

The impact of human-AI collaboration types on consumer evaluation and usage intention: a perspective of responsibility attribution

The existence of manual mode increases human blame for AI mistakes

Complex accident, clear responsibility

Causal Responsibility Attribution for Human-AI Collaboration

Unsafe At Any Level: NHTSA's levels of automation are a liability for autonomous vehicle design and regulation

Responsibility for crashes of autonomous vehicles: an ethical analysis