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.

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

Perceived corruption reduces 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

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

Designing Medical Artificial Intelligence for In- and Out-Groups

A systematic review of algorithm aversion in augmented decision making

Task-Dependent Algorithm Aversion

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

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

Algorithm Aversion: People Erroneously Avoid Algorithms after Seeing Them Err

Reputational Algorithm Aversion

Cultural Differences in People's Reactions and Applications of Robots, Algorithms, and Artificial Intelligence

People Prefer Moral Discretion to Algorithms: Algorithm Aversion Beyond Intransparency

How to overcome algorithm aversion: Learning from mistakes

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

Preference for human, not algorithm aversion

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

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

Automating Automaticity: How the Context of Human Choice Affects the Extent of Algorithmic Bias

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

Overcoming Algorithm Aversion: A Comparison between Process and Outcome Control