An official website of the United States government
The increased use of algorithms to support decision making raises questions about whether people prefer algorithmic or human input when making decisions. Two streams of research on algorithm aversion and algorithm appreciation have yielded contradicting results. Our work attempts to reconcile these contradictory findings by focusing on the framings of humans and algorithms as a mechanism. In three decision making experiments, we created an algorithm appreciation result (Experiment 1) as well as an algorithm aversion result (Experiment 2) by manipulating only the description of the human agent and the algorithmic agent, and we demonstrated how different choices of framings can lead to inconsistent outcomes in previous studies (Experiment 3). We also showed that these results were mediated by the agent's perceived competence, i.e., expert power. The results provide insights into the divergence of the algorithm aversion and algorithm appreciation literature. We hope to shift the attention from these two contradicting phenomena to how we can better design the framing of algorithms. We also call the attention of the community to the theory of power sources, as it is a systemic framework that can open up new possibilities for designing algorithmic decision support systems.
more »
« less
Six personas to adopt when framing theoretical research questions in biology
Theory is a critical component of the biological research process, and complements observational and experimental approaches. However, most biologists receive little training on how to frame a theoretical question and, thus, how to evaluate when theory has successfully answered the research question. Here, we develop a guide with six verbal framings for theoretical models in biology. These correspond to different personas one might adopt as a theorist: ‘Advocate’, ‘Explainer’, ‘Instigator’, ‘Mediator’, ‘Semantician' and ‘Tinkerer’. These personas are drawn from combinations of two starting points (pattern or mechanism) and three foci (novelty, robustness or conflict). We illustrate each of these framings with examples of specific theoretical questions, by drawing on recent theoretical papers in the fields of ecology and evolutionary biology. We show how the same research topic can be approached from slightly different perspectives, using different framings. We show how clarifying a model’s framing can debunk common misconceptions of theory: that simplifying assumptions are bad, more detail is always better, models show anything you want and modelling requires substantial maths knowledge. Finally, we provide a roadmap that researchers new to theoretical research can use to identify a framing to serve as a blueprint for their own theoretical research projects.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10550043
- Publisher / Repository:
- Royal Society
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
- Volume:
- 291
- Issue:
- 2031
- ISSN:
- 0962-8452
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
The goal of assessing psychosocial stress as a process and outcome in naturalistic (i.e., field) settings is applicable across the social, biological, and health sciences. Meaningful measurement of biology-in-context is, however, far from simple or straightforward. In this brief methods review, we introduce theoretical framings, methodological conventions, and ethical concerns around field-collection of markers of psychosocial stress that have emerged from 50 years of research at the intersection of anthropology and human biology. Highlighting measures of psychosocial stress outcomes most often used in biocultural studies, we identify the circumstances under which varied measures are most appropriately applied and provide examples of the types of cutting-edge research questions these measures can address. We explain that field-based psychosocial stress measures embedded in different body systems are neither equivalent nor interchangeable, but this recognition strengthens the study of stress as always simultaneously cultural and biological, situated in local ecologies, social–political structures, and time.more » « less
-
Abstract When species simultaneously compete with two or more species of competitor, higher‐order interactions (HOIs) can lead to emergent properties not present when species interact in isolated pairs. To extend ecological theory to multi‐competitor communities, ecologists must confront the challenges of measuring and interpreting HOIs in models of competition fit to data from nature. Such efforts are hindered by the fact that different studies use different definitions, and these definitions have unclear relationships to one another. Here, we propose a distinction between ‘soft’ HOIs, which identify possible interaction modification by competitors, and ‘hard’ HOIs, which identify interactions uniquely emerging in systems with three or more competitors. We show how these two classes of HOI differ in their motivation and interpretation, as well as the tests one uses to identify them in models fit to data. We then show how to operationalise this structure of definitions by analysing the results of a simulated competition experiment underlain by a consumer resource model. In the course of doing so, we clarify the challenges of interpreting HOIs in nature, and suggest a more precise framing of this research endeavour to catalyse further investigations.more » « less
-
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
-
Tipping points have gained substantial traction in climate change discourses. Here we critique the ‘tipping point’ framing for oversimplifying the diverse dynamics of complex natural and human systems and for conveying urgency without fostering a meaningful basis for climate action. Multiple social scientific frameworks suggest that the deep uncertainty and perceived abstractness of climate tipping points render them ineffective for triggering action and setting governance goals. The framing also promotes confusion between temperature-based policy benchmarks and properties of the climate system. In both natural and human systems, we advocate for clearer, more specific language to describe the phenomena labelled as tipping points and for critical evaluation of whether, how and why different framings can support scientific understanding and climate risk management.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2024.0803
