The increasing integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in decision-making processes has amplified discussions surrounding algorithmic authority—the perceived epistemic legitimacy of AI systems over human judgment. This study investigates how individuals attribute epistemic authority to AI, focusing on psychological, contextual, and sociotechnical factors. Existing research highlights the importance of trust in automation, perceived performance, and moral frameworks in shaping such attributions. Unlike prior conceptual or philosophical accounts of algorithmic authority, our study adopts a relational and empirically grounded perspective by operationalizing algority through psychometric measures and contextual assessments. To address knowledge gaps in the micro-level dynamics of this phenomenon, we conducted an empirical study using psychometric tools and scenario-based assessments. Here, we report key findings from a survey of 610 participants, revealing significant correlations between trust in automation (TiA), perceptions of automated performance (PAS), and the propensity to defer to AI, particularly in high-stakes scenarios like criminal justice and job-matching. Trust in automation emerged as a primary factor, while moral attitudes moderated deference in ethically sensitive contexts. Our findings highlight the practical relevance of transparency and explainability for supporting critical engagement with AI outputs and for informing the design of contextually appropriate decision support. This study contributes to understanding algorithmic authority as a multidimensional construct, offering empirically grounded insights for designing AI systems that are trustworthy and context-sensitive.
Milella et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: