When people are defeated by artificial intelligence in a competition task requiring logical thinking, how do they make causal attribution?

Given that artificial intelligence (AI) has been predicted to eventually take on human tasks demanding logical thinking, it makes sense that we should examine psychological responses of humans when their performance is inferior to AI. Research has demonstrated that after people fail a task, whether they reorient their behavior towards success depends on what they attribute the failure to. This study investigated the causal attributions people made in a competition task requiring such thinking. We also recorded whether they wanted to re-challenge the games after they were defeated by AI. Experiments 1 (N = 74) and 2 (N = 788) recruited Japanese participants, while Experiment 3 (N = 500) comprised American participants. There were two conditions: in the first, participants competed against an AI opponent and in the other, they believed they were competing against a human. The results of the three experiments showed that participants attributed the loss to their own and their opponent’s abilities more than any other factor, irrespective of the opponent type. The number of participants choosing to re-challenge the game did not differ significantly between the AI and human conditions in Experiments 1 and 3, although the number was lower in the AI condition than in the human condition in Experiment 2. Besides providing fresh insight on how people make causal attributions when competing against AI, our findings also predict how people will respond after their jobs are replaced by AI. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-021-02559-w.