Knowledge workers’ trust and reception of generative AI’s advice in complex tasks

Building on the prior literature that suggests knowledge workers are generally averse to algorithmic advice, this study explores the differences in reception of and trust in generative AI (GAI) advice compared to human advice, particularly among various reception groups engaged in complex and professional tasks, such as software development. Studies 1 and 2 explore preferences between human and GAI advice sources and assess the impact of users’ reception to GAI. The findings reveal that programmers appreciate GAI advice more than the equivalent advice from human experts. Furthermore, the reception type significantly influences advice-taking behaviour; programmers with a dominant reception of GAI exhibit greater acceptance, while those with an oppositional reception show less acceptance. In Study 3, we develop a nomological model through survey data to verify the complex relationships among technological innovativeness, various forms of trust in GAI, and advice-taking behaviour, noting variations among the different reception groups. We also conduct a complementary configurational analysis to examine how users’ trust in GAI is influenced by factors outside the main domain of study, such as task complexity, perceived security risks, and past exposure to GAI. Our research challenges the widely held belief of algorithm aversion among knowledge workers and contributes to information systems literature by highlighting the impact of the critical factors such as individual reception, past exposure, and innovativeness on knowledge workers’ advice-taking from GAI. Practically, it offers insights for organisations to develop human-centric GAI implementation strategies that embrace individual differences. • The paper explores the differences in advice taking behaviour in complex tasks when the advice comes from human or generative AI (GAI) and across various reception groups. • The study challenges the prevailing notion of algorithmic aversion by showing that programmers exhibit greater appreciation for GAI advice compared to human experts. • The study further clarifies the mechanism through which various forms of trust in GAI can impact the advice taking behaviour. • Using a configurational approach, the study identifies key factors, such as past exposure to GAI and perceived security risks, that significantly influence trust in GAI.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
International Journal of Information Management
Published
2026-01-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2026.103031
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
25.65
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Knowledge workers’ trust and reception of generative AI’s advice in complex tasks

Jun Yang, Basma Badreddine, Syed Hasan, Alireza Amrollahi
1 citations
International Journal of Information Management
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
25.65
article

Knowledge workers’ trust and reception of generative AI’s advice in complex tasks

Jun Yang, Basma Badreddine, Syed Hasan, Alireza Amrollahi
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Building on the prior literature that suggests knowledge workers are generally averse to algorithmic advice, this study explores the differences in reception of and trust in generative AI (GAI) advice compared to human advice, particularly among various reception groups engaged in complex and professional tasks, such as software development. Studies 1 and 2 explore preferences between human and GAI advice sources and assess the impact of users’ reception to GAI. The findings reveal that programmers appreciate GAI advice more than the equivalent advice from human experts. Furthermore, the reception type significantly influences advice-taking behaviour; programmers with a dominant reception of GAI exhibit greater acceptance, while those with an oppositional reception show less acceptance. In Study 3, we develop a nomological model through survey data to verify the complex relationships among technological innovativeness, various forms of trust in GAI, and advice-taking behaviour, noting variations among the different reception groups. We also conduct a complementary configurational analysis to examine how users’ trust in GAI is influenced by factors outside the main domain of study, such as task complexity, perceived security risks, and past exposure to GAI. Our research challenges the widely held belief of algorithm aversion among knowledge workers and contributes to information systems literature by highlighting the impact of the critical factors such as individual reception, past exposure, and innovativeness on knowledge workers’ advice-taking from GAI. Practically, it offers insights for organisations to develop human-centric GAI implementation strategies that embrace individual differences. • The paper explores the differences in advice taking behaviour in complex tasks when the advice comes from human or generative AI (GAI) and across various reception groups. • The study challenges the prevailing notion of algorithmic aversion by showing that programmers exhibit greater appreciation for GAI advice compared to human experts. • The study further clarifies the mechanism through which various forms of trust in GAI can impact the advice taking behaviour. • Using a configurational approach, the study identifies key factors, such as past exposure to GAI and perceived security risks, that significantly influence trust in GAI.

International Journal of Information ManagementVol. 88
UNSW Sydney (AU), Australian Catholic University (AU), Macquarie University (AU)
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
25.65
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.