Algorithm Aversion as an Obstacle in the Establishment of Robo Advisors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within the framework of a laboratory experiment, we examine to what extent algorithm aversion acts as an obstacle in the establishment of robo advisors. The subjects had to complete diversification tasks. They could either do this themselves or they could delegate them to a robo advisor. The robo advisor evaluated all the relevant data and always made the decision which led to the highest expected value for the subjects’ payment. Although the high level of efficiency in the robo advisor was clear to see, the subjects only entrusted their decisions to the robo advisor in around 40% of cases. In this way, they reduced their success and their payment. Many subjects orientated themselves towards the 1/n-heuristic, which also contributed to their suboptimal decisions. As long as the subjects had to make decisions for others, they noticeably made a greater effort and were also more successful than when they made decisions for themselves. However, this did not have an effect on their acceptance of robo advisors. Even when they made decisions on behalf of others, the robo advisor was only consulted in around 40% of cases. This tendency towards algorithm aversion among subjects is an obstacle to the broader establishment of robo advisors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it