Technological Shocks and Algorithmic Decision Aids in Credence Goods Markets
0
📶
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Consumers in certain markets, like healthcare or repair services, rely on experts with more information to properly diagnose and treat them
- Experts, however, have limitations in their diagnostic abilities, which can hurt market efficiency and consumer welfare
- New technologies that complement or substitute expert judgment have the potential to improve this situation
- This paper studies how competitive experts choose to adopt novel diagnostic technologies when skills are unequally distributed and hidden from consumers
Plain English Explanation
In some markets, like healthcare or repair services, consumers depend on experts who have more information than they do to properly diagnose and treat them. However, these experts have constraints on their diagnostic abilities, which can reduce the efficiency of the market and hurt consumer well-being. Technological breakthroughs that can either replace or work alongside expert judgments have the potential to address this issue.
This research looks at how competing experts decide to adopt new diagnostic technologies when their skills are unevenly distributed and hidden from consumers. The paper differentiates between two types of technologies: those that increase an expert's own diagnostic abilities, and algorithmic decision aids that complement the expert's judgments without directly improving their personal precision.
The key finding is that high-skilled experts may choose not to use the decision aid, in order to stand out from lower-skilled experts and avoid being grouped together with them. An online experiment supports this idea, showing that high-skill experts are significantly less likely than low-skill ones to invest in the algorithmic tool. The research also finds that overall, experts tend to underutilize the decision aids, and that using the aids does not impact expert honesty.
Technical Explanation
This paper examines expert adoption of novel diagnostic technologies in credence goods markets, where consumers rely on experts with superior information to properly treat them. The authors differentiate between two types of technologies: those that increase the expert's own diagnostic abilities, and algorithmic decision aids that complement the expert's judgments without directly improving their personal precision.
Through a game-theoretic model, the researchers show that high-ability experts may strategically forego the decision aid in order to escape a pooling equilibrium and differentiate themselves from low-ability experts. This is because the high-ability experts can leverage their superior skills to outperform the low-ability experts even without the aid, and avoiding the aid allows them to signal their high ability to consumers.
The authors test this hypothesis using an online experiment, which demonstrates that high-ability experts are significantly less likely than low-ability experts to invest in the algorithmic decision aid. The experiment also reveals widespread underinvestment in the decision aids overall, and no effect of the aids on expert honesty.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides valuable insights into how expert behavior and market dynamics can be influenced by the introduction of new diagnostic technologies. However, there are a few potential limitations and areas for further research:
-
The model assumes that consumer ability to observe expert skill is binary (high or low), whereas in reality, skill levels may exist on a spectrum. Incorporating more nuanced perceptions of skill could yield additional insights.
-
The experiment used a relatively simple decision-making task, and it's unclear how the results would scale to more complex, real-world medical or repair scenarios. Further research in more realistic settings would be valuable.
-
The paper does not address potential issues of algorithmic bias or fairness that could arise from the use of decision aids. Exploring these concerns would be an important area for future work.
Overall, this research provides a thought-provoking exploration of how technological advancements can shape expert behavior and market dynamics in credence goods sectors. The findings suggest the need for policymakers and industry stakeholders to carefully consider the implications of new diagnostic technologies.
Conclusion
This paper investigates how competitive experts choose to adopt novel diagnostic technologies in credence goods markets, where consumers rely on experts with superior information. The key finding is that high-ability experts may strategically avoid using algorithmic decision aids in order to differentiate themselves from lower-skilled experts and signal their superior abilities to consumers.
The research highlights the complex interplay between technological progress, expert behavior, and market efficiency in sectors like healthcare and repair services. While new tools have the potential to improve consumer outcomes, the paper suggests that experts' strategic incentives can lead to suboptimal technology adoption. Addressing these challenges will be an important priority as credence goods markets continue to evolve.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
📶
0
Technological Shocks and Algorithmic Decision Aids in Credence Goods Markets
Alexander Erlei, Lukas Meub
In credence goods markets such as health care or repair services, consumers rely on experts with superior information to adequately diagnose and treat them. Experts, however, are constrained in their diagnostic abilities, which hurts market efficiency and consumer welfare. Technological breakthroughs that substitute or complement expert judgments have the potential to alleviate consumer mistreatment. This article studies how competitive experts adopt novel diagnostic technologies when skills are heterogeneously distributed and obfuscated to consumers. We differentiate between novel technologies that increase expert abilities, and algorithmic decision aids that complement expert judgments, but do not affect an expert's personal diagnostic precision. We show that high-ability experts may be incentivized to forego the decision aid in order to escape a pooling equilibrium by differentiating themselves from low-ability experts. Results from an online experiment support our hypothesis, showing that high-ability experts are significantly less likely than low-ability experts to invest into an algorithmic decision aid. Furthermore, we document pervasive under-investments, and no effect on expert honesty.
Read more4/16/2024
0
(De)Noise: Moderating the Inconsistency Between Human Decision-Makers
Nina Grgi'c-Hlav{c}a, Junaid Ali, Krishna P. Gummadi, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan
Prior research in psychology has found that people's decisions are often inconsistent. An individual's decisions vary across time, and decisions vary even more across people. Inconsistencies have been identified not only in subjective matters, like matters of taste, but also in settings one might expect to be more objective, such as sentencing, job performance evaluations, or real estate appraisals. In our study, we explore whether algorithmic decision aids can be used to moderate the degree of inconsistency in human decision-making in the context of real estate appraisal. In a large-scale human-subject experiment, we study how different forms of algorithmic assistance influence the way that people review and update their estimates of real estate prices. We find that both (i) asking respondents to review their estimates in a series of algorithmically chosen pairwise comparisons and (ii) providing respondents with traditional machine advice are effective strategies for influencing human responses. Compared to simply reviewing initial estimates one by one, the aforementioned strategies lead to (i) a higher propensity to update initial estimates, (ii) a higher accuracy of post-review estimates, and (iii) a higher degree of consistency between the post-review estimates of different respondents. While these effects are more pronounced with traditional machine advice, the approach of reviewing algorithmically chosen pairs can be implemented in a wider range of settings, since it does not require access to ground truth data.
Read more7/17/2024
🔍
0
Reputational Algorithm Aversion
Gregory Weitzner
People are often reluctant to incorporate information produced by algorithms into their decisions, a phenomenon called ``algorithm aversion''. This paper shows how algorithm aversion arises when the choice to follow an algorithm conveys information about a human's ability. I develop a model in which workers make forecasts of an uncertain outcome based on their own private information and an algorithm's signal. Low-skill workers receive worse information than the algorithm and hence should always follow the algorithm's signal, while high-skill workers receive better information than the algorithm and should sometimes override it. However, due to reputational concerns, low-skill workers inefficiently override the algorithm to increase the likelihood they are perceived as high-skill. The model provides a fully rational microfoundation for algorithm aversion that aligns with the broad concern that AI systems will displace many types of workers.
Read more8/2/2024
🔮
0
Human Expertise in Algorithmic Prediction
Rohan Alur, Manish Raghavan, Devavrat Shah
We introduce a novel framework for incorporating human expertise into algorithmic predictions. Our approach focuses on the use of human judgment to distinguish inputs which `look the same' to any feasible predictive algorithm. We argue that this framing clarifies the problem of human/AI collaboration in prediction tasks, as experts often have access to information -- particularly subjective information -- which is not encoded in the algorithm's training data. We use this insight to develop a set of principled algorithms for selectively incorporating human feedback only when it improves the performance of any feasible predictor. We find empirically that although algorithms often outperform their human counterparts on average, human judgment can significantly improve algorithmic predictions on specific instances (which can be identified ex-ante). In an X-ray classification task, we find that this subset constitutes nearly 30% of the patient population. Our approach provides a natural way of uncovering this heterogeneity and thus enabling effective human-AI collaboration.
Read more5/24/2024