An official website of the United States government
Machines increasingly decide over the allocation of resources or tasks among people resulting in what we call Machine Allocation Behavior. People respond strongly to how other people or machines allocate resources. However, the implications for human relationships of algorithmic allocations of, for example, tasks among crowd workers, annual bonuses among employees, or a robot’s gaze among members of a group entering a store remains unclear. We leverage a novel research paradigm to study the impact of machine allocation behavior on fairness perceptions, interpersonal perceptions, and individual performance. In a 2 × 3 between-subject design that manipulates how the allocation agent is presented (human vs. artificial intelligent [AI] system) and the allocation type (receiving less vs. equal vs. more resources), we find that group members who receive more resources perceive their counterpart as less dominant when the allocation originates from an AI as opposed to a human. Our findings have implications on our understanding of the impact of machine allocation behavior on interpersonal dynamics and on the way in which we understand human responses towards this type of machine behavior.
more »
« less
Who Gets What, According to Whom? An Analysis of Fairness Perceptions in Service Allocation
Algorithmic fairness research has traditionally been linked to the disciplines of philosophy, ethics, and economics, where notions of fairness are prescriptive and seek objectivity. Increasingly, however, scholars are turning to the study of what different people perceive to be fair, and how these perceptions can or should help to shape the design of machine learning, particularly in the policy realm. The present work experimentally explores five novel research questions at the intersection of the "Who," "What," and "How" of fairness perceptions. Specifically, we present the results of a multi-factor conjoint analysis study that quantifies the effects of the specific context in which a question is asked, the framing of the given question, and who is answering it. Our results broadly suggest that the "Who" and "What," at least, matter in ways that are 1) not easily explained by any one theoretical perspective, 2) have critical implications for how perceptions of fairness should be measured and/or integrated into algorithmic decision-making systems.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1939579
- PAR ID:
- 10310026
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
How social media platforms could fairly conduct content moderation is gaining attention from society at large. Researchers from HCI and CSCW have investigated whether certain factors could affect how users perceive moderation decisions as fair or unfair. However, little attention has been paid to unpacking or elaborating on the formation processes of users' perceived (un)fairness from their moderation experiences, especially users who monetize their content. By interviewing 21 for-profit YouTubers (i.e., video content creators), we found three primary ways through which participants assess moderation fairness, including equality across their peers, consistency across moderation decisions and policies, and their voice in algorithmic visibility decision-making processes. Building upon the findings, we discuss how our participants' fairness perceptions demonstrate a multi-dimensional notion of moderation fairness and how YouTube implements an algorithmic assemblage to moderate YouTubers. We derive translatable design considerations for a fairer moderation system on platforms affording creator monetization.more » « less
-
Variance in predictions across different trained models is a significant, under-explored source of error in fair binary classification. In practice, the variance on some data examples is so large that decisions can be effectively arbitrary. To investigate this problem, we take an experimental approach and make four overarching contributions. We: 1) Define a metric called self-consistency, derived from variance, which we use as a proxy for measuring and reducing arbitrariness; 2) Develop an ensembling algorithm that abstains from classification when a prediction would be arbitrary; 3) Conduct the largest to-date empirical study of the role of variance (vis-a-vis self-consistency and arbitrariness) in fair binary classification; and, 4) Release a toolkit that makes the US Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) datasets easily usable for future research. Altogether, our experiments reveal shocking insights about the reliability of conclusions on benchmark datasets. Most fair binary classification benchmarks are close-to-fair when taking into account the amount of arbitrariness present in predictions -- before we even try to apply any fairness interventions. This finding calls into question the practical utility of common algorithmic fairness methods, and in turn suggests that we should reconsider how we choose to measure fairness in binary classification.more » « less
-
Fairness metrics have become a useful tool to measure how fair or unfair a machine learning system may be for its stakeholders. In the context of recommender systems, previous research has explored how various stakeholders experience algorithmic fairness or unfairness, but it is also important to capture these experiences in the design of fairness metrics. Therefore, we conducted four focus groups with providers (those whose items, content, or profiles are being recommended) of two different domains: content creators and dating app users. We explored how our participants experience unfairness on their associated platforms, and worked with them to co-design fairness goals, definitions, and metrics that might capture these experiences. This work represents an important step towards designing fairness metrics with the stakeholders who will be impacted by their operationalizations. We analyze the efficacy and challenges of enacting these metrics in practice and explore how future work might benefit from this methodology.more » « less
-
Algorithmic decision-making systems are increasingly used throughout the public and private sectors to make important decisions or assist humans in making these decisions with real social consequences. While there has been substantial research in recent years to build fair decision-making algorithms, there has been less research seeking to understand the factors that affect people's perceptions of fairness in these systems, which we argue is also important for their broader acceptance. In this research, we conduct an online experiment to better understand perceptions of fairness, focusing on three sets of factors: algorithm outcomes, algorithm development and deployment procedures, and individual differences. We find that people rate the algorithm as more fair when the algorithm predicts in their favor, even surpassing the negative effects of describing algorithms that are very biased against particular demographic groups. We find that this effect is moderated by several variables, including participants' education level, gender, and several aspects of the development procedure. Our findings suggest that systems that evaluate algorithmic fairness through users' feedback must consider the possibility of "outcome favorability" bias.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- https://doi.org/10.1145/3461702.3462568
