Comparing AI and Human Advice Adoption in Symbolic–Spiritual Consumption: The Role of Psychological Safety
Research Article
Open Access
CC BY

Comparing AI and Human Advice Adoption in Symbolic–Spiritual Consumption: The Role of Psychological Safety

Ziyi Yu 1*
1 City University of Hong Kong
*Corresponding author: yzyzoie@163.com
Published on 28 October 2025
Journal Cover
AEMPS Vol.234
ISSN (Print): 2754-1177
ISSN (Online): 2754-1169
ISBN (Print): 978-1-80590-487-8
ISBN (Online): 978-1-80590-488-5
Download Cover

Abstract

Prior research on human–algorithm interaction has largely highlighted algorithm aversion, showing that consumers often resist algorithmic advice due to insufficient trust and skepticism about algorithms’ capabilities in complex and subjective tasks. In contrast, evidence on algorithm appreciation is relatively limited and primarily observed in functional contexts, where algorithms are valued for superior accuracy or efficiency. Little is known about whether algorithm appreciation may also emerge in non-functional consumption contexts, particularly in symbolic–spiritual consumption. Such consumption is process-oriented, uncertain, and highly subjective, often occurring in low social visibility and introspective situations. In these settings, consumers seek instrumental utility, psychological comfort, and emotional reassurance. This study investigates whether consumers prefer AI advice over humans in symbolic–spiritual consumption and examines the underlying psychological mechanisms. A survey-based experiment demonstrates that AI enhances consumers’ psychological safety, increasing advice adoption intention. These findings highlight that algorithm appreciation can also arise from psychological mechanisms beyond functional advantages, while offering practical implications for the application of AI in symbolic consumption contexts.

Keywords:

Algorithm appreciation, Symbolic–spiritual consumption, Advice adoption intention, Psychological safety, Social sensitivity

View PDF
Yu,Z. (2025). Comparing AI and Human Advice Adoption in Symbolic–Spiritual Consumption: The Role of Psychological Safety. Advances in Economics, Management and Political Sciences,234,29-34.

References

[1]. Global Growth Insights. (2025). Spiritual products and services market size, share, growth, and industry analysis, by types (Books, magazines, candles & incense sticks, wall décor, service), applications covered (Offline, online), regional insights and forecast to 2033.

[2]. Grieshaber, K. (2023). Can a chatbot preach a good sermon? Hundreds attend a church service generated by ChatGPT to find out. AP News. https: //apnews.com/article/germany-church-protestants-chatgpt-ai-sermon-651f21c24cfb47e3122e987a7263d348

[3]. Li, B., Lai, E. Y., & Wang, X. (Shane). (2025). EXPRESS: From Tools to Agents: Meta-Analytic Insights into Human Acceptance of AI. Journal of Marketing.

[4]. Granulo, A., Fuchs, C., & Puntoni, S. (2021). Preference for human (vs. robotic) labor is stronger in symbolic consumption contexts. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 31(1), 72–80. https: //doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1181

[5]. Shaw, D., & Thomson, J. (2013). Consuming spirituality: The pleasure of uncertainty.  European Journal of Marketing,   47(3), 557-573. doi: https: //doi.org/10.1108/03090561311297454

[6]. Williams, J., & Krisjanous, J. (2023). Spreading the word: Exploring spiritual consumption on social media. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 40(1), 124–135.

[7]. Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P., & Massey, C. (2015). Algorithm aversion: people erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(1), 114.

[8]. Allen, R., & Choudhury, P. (2022). Algorithm-augmented work and domain experience: The countervailing forces of ability and aversion. Organization Science, 33(1), 149-169.

[9]. Logg, Jennifer M., Julia A. Minson, and Don A. Moore. "Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 151 (2019): 90-103.

[10]. Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and management: The automation–augmentation paradox. Academy of Management Review, 46(1), 192-210.

[11]. Arnould, E. J., Thompson, C. J., & [Dawn Iacobucci served as editor for this article.]. (2005). Consumer Culture Theory (CCT): Twenty Years of Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 868–882.

[12]. Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the Extended Self. Journal of Consumer Research

[13]. Schouten, J. W. (1991). Selves in transition: Symbolic consumption in personal rites of passage and identity reconstruction. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 412–425.

[14]. Rinallo, D., Scott, L., & Maclaran, P. (Eds.) (2013). Consumption and Spirituality. Routledge.

[15]. Waller, D. S., & Casidy, R. (2021). Religion, spirituality, and advertising. Journal of Advertising, 50(4), 349-353.

[16]. Artinger, F. M., Marx-Fleck, S., Junker, N. M., Gigerenzer, G., Artinger, S., & van Dick, R. (2025). Coping with uncertainty: The interaction of psychological safety and authentic leadership in their effects on defensive decision making.  Journal of Business Research,   190, Article 115240. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2025.115240.

[17]. Zwebner, Y., & Schrift, R. Y. (2020). On my own: The aversion to being observed during the preference-construction stage. Journal of Consumer Research, 47(4), 475-499.

[18]. Wessel, M., Adam, M., Benlian, A., Majchrzak, A., & Thies, F. (2025). Generative AI and its transformative value for digital platforms. Journal of Management Information Systems, 42(2), 346-369.

[19]. Bao, L., Huang, D. and Lin, C., 2024. Can artificial intelligence improve gender equality? Evidence from a natural experiment. Management Science.

[20]. Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling.

References

[1]. Global Growth Insights. (2025). Spiritual products and services market size, share, growth, and industry analysis, by types (Books, magazines, candles & incense sticks, wall décor, service), applications covered (Offline, online), regional insights and forecast to 2033.

[2]. Grieshaber, K. (2023). Can a chatbot preach a good sermon? Hundreds attend a church service generated by ChatGPT to find out. AP News. https: //apnews.com/article/germany-church-protestants-chatgpt-ai-sermon-651f21c24cfb47e3122e987a7263d348

[3]. Li, B., Lai, E. Y., & Wang, X. (Shane). (2025). EXPRESS: From Tools to Agents: Meta-Analytic Insights into Human Acceptance of AI. Journal of Marketing.

[4]. Granulo, A., Fuchs, C., & Puntoni, S. (2021). Preference for human (vs. robotic) labor is stronger in symbolic consumption contexts. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 31(1), 72–80. https: //doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1181

[5]. Shaw, D., & Thomson, J. (2013). Consuming spirituality: The pleasure of uncertainty.  European Journal of Marketing,   47(3), 557-573. doi: https: //doi.org/10.1108/03090561311297454

[6]. Williams, J., & Krisjanous, J. (2023). Spreading the word: Exploring spiritual consumption on social media. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 40(1), 124–135.

[7]. Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P., & Massey, C. (2015). Algorithm aversion: people erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(1), 114.

[8]. Allen, R., & Choudhury, P. (2022). Algorithm-augmented work and domain experience: The countervailing forces of ability and aversion. Organization Science, 33(1), 149-169.

[9]. Logg, Jennifer M., Julia A. Minson, and Don A. Moore. "Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 151 (2019): 90-103.

[10]. Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and management: The automation–augmentation paradox. Academy of Management Review, 46(1), 192-210.

[11]. Arnould, E. J., Thompson, C. J., & [Dawn Iacobucci served as editor for this article.]. (2005). Consumer Culture Theory (CCT): Twenty Years of Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 868–882.

[12]. Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the Extended Self. Journal of Consumer Research

[13]. Schouten, J. W. (1991). Selves in transition: Symbolic consumption in personal rites of passage and identity reconstruction. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 412–425.

[14]. Rinallo, D., Scott, L., & Maclaran, P. (Eds.) (2013). Consumption and Spirituality. Routledge.

[15]. Waller, D. S., & Casidy, R. (2021). Religion, spirituality, and advertising. Journal of Advertising, 50(4), 349-353.

[16]. Artinger, F. M., Marx-Fleck, S., Junker, N. M., Gigerenzer, G., Artinger, S., & van Dick, R. (2025). Coping with uncertainty: The interaction of psychological safety and authentic leadership in their effects on defensive decision making.  Journal of Business Research,   190, Article 115240. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2025.115240.

[17]. Zwebner, Y., & Schrift, R. Y. (2020). On my own: The aversion to being observed during the preference-construction stage. Journal of Consumer Research, 47(4), 475-499.

[18]. Wessel, M., Adam, M., Benlian, A., Majchrzak, A., & Thies, F. (2025). Generative AI and its transformative value for digital platforms. Journal of Management Information Systems, 42(2), 346-369.

[19]. Bao, L., Huang, D. and Lin, C., 2024. Can artificial intelligence improve gender equality? Evidence from a natural experiment. Management Science.

[20]. Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling.

Cite this article

Yu,Z. (2025). Comparing AI and Human Advice Adoption in Symbolic–Spiritual Consumption: The Role of Psychological Safety. Advances in Economics, Management and Political Sciences,234,29-34.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from the authors upon reasonable request.

About volume

Volume title: Proceedings of ICFTBA 2025 Symposium: Global Trends in Green Financial Innovation and Technology

ISBN: 978-1-80590-487-8(Print) / 978-1-80590-488-5(Online)
Editor: Lukáš Vartiak, Sun Huaping
Conference website: https://www.icftba.org/Beijing.html
Conference date: 20 November 2025
Series: Advances in Economics, Management and Political Sciences
Volume number: Vol.234
ISSN: 2754-1169(Print) / 2754-1177(Online)

© 2024 by the author(s). Licensee EWA Publishing, Oxford, UK. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. Authors who publish this series agree to the following terms:

1. Authors retain copyright and grant the series right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this series.

2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the series's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this series.

3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See Open access policy for details).

For authors
For editors
For reviewers

Cookies are used by this site.
Copyright © 2024 EWA Publishing, its licensors, and contributors. All rights reserved, including text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.