Abstract:Institutions are increasingly employing algorithms to provide performance feedback to individuals by tracking productivity, conducting performance appraisals, and developing improvement plans, compared to traditional human managers. However, this shift has provoked considerable debate over the effectiveness and fairness of algorithmic feedback. This study investigates the effects of negative performance feedback (NPF) on the attitudes, cognition and behavior of medical researchers, comparing NPF from algorithms versus humans. Two scenario-based experimental studies were conducted with a total sample of 660 medical researchers (algorithm group: N1 = 411; human group: N2 = 249). Study 1 analyzes the differences in scientific misconduct, moral disengagement, and algorithmic attitudes between the two sources of NPF. The findings reveal that NPF from algorithms shows higher levels of moral disengagement, scientific misconduct, and negative attitudes towards algorithms compared to NPF from humans. Study 2, grounded in trait activation theory, investigates how NPF from algorithms triggers individual's egoism and algorithm aversion, potentially leading to moral disengagement and scientific misconduct. Results indicate that algorithm aversion triggers individuals' egoism, and their interaction enhances moral disengagement, which in turn leads to increased scientific misconduct among researchers. This relationship is also moderated by algorithmic transparency. The study concludes that while algorithms can streamline performance evaluations, they pose significant risks to scientific misconduct of researchers if not properly designed. These findings extend our understanding of NPF by highlighting the emotional and cognitive challenges algorithms face in decision-making processes, while also underscoring the importance of balancing technological efficiency with moral considerations to promote a healthy research environment. Moreover, managerial implications include integrating human oversight in algorithmic NPF processes and enhancing transparency and fairness to mitigate negative impacts on medical researchers' attitudes and behaviors.

Perceived corruption reduces algorithm aversion

People Prefer Moral Discretion to Algorithms: Algorithm Aversion Beyond Intransparency

Is algorithm aversion WEIRD? A cross-country comparison of individual-differences and algorithm aversion

When the Automated Fire Backfires: the Adoption of Algorithm-based HR Decision-making Could Induce Consumer's Unfavorable Ethicality Inferences of the Company

Reputational Algorithm Aversion

Algorithm aversion? On the influence of advice accuracy on trust in algorithmic advice

Task-Dependent Algorithm Aversion

Algorithm Aversion: People Erroneously Avoid Algorithms after Seeing Them Err

How to overcome algorithm aversion: Learning from mistakes

Ruled by robots: preference for algorithmic decision makers and perceptions of their choices

Negative performance feedback from algorithms or humans? effect of medical researchers' algorithm aversion on scientific misconduct

A systematic review of algorithm aversion in augmented decision making

Prejudiced against the Machine? Implicit Associations and the Transience of Algorithm Aversion

What influences algorithmic decision-making? A systematic literature review on algorithm aversion

Factors Influencing Perceived Fairness in Algorithmic Decision-Making: Algorithm Outcomes, Development Procedures, and Individual Differences

After Opening the Black Box: Meta-dehumanization Matters in Algorithm Recommendation Aversion

The extent of algorithm aversion in decision-making situations with varying gravity

An Integrative Perspective on Algorithm Aversion and Appreciation in Decision-Making

When Self-Humanization Leads to Algorithm Aversion

People Perceive Algorithmic Assessments as Less Fair and Trustworthy Than Identical Human Assessments

Algorithmic Discrimination Causes Less Moral Outrage than Human Discrimination