Search for: All records

Abstract The use of algorithms and automated systems, especially those leveraging artificial intelligence (AI), has been exploding in the public sector, but their use has been controversial. Ethicists, public advocates, and legal scholars have debated whether biases in AI systems should bar their use or if the potential net benefits, especially toward traditionally disadvantaged groups, justify even greater expansion. While this debate has become voluminous, no scholars of which we are aware have conducted experiments with the groups affected by these policies about how they view the trade-offs. We conduct a set of two conjoint experiments with a high-quality sample of 973 Americans who identify as Black or African American in which we randomize the levels of inter-group disparity in outcomes and the net effect on such adverse outcomes in two highly controversial contexts: pre-trial detention and traffic camera ticketing. The results suggest that respondents are willing to tolerate some level of disparity in outcomes in exchange for certain net improvements for their community. These results turn this debate from an abstract ethical argument into an evaluation of political feasibility and policy design based on empirics. 

The primary purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature regarding the characteristics, use, and implementation of an emerging assessment methodology, SRL microanalysis. Forty-two studies across diverse samples, contexts, and research methodologies met inclusion criteria. The majority of studies used microanalysis to either comprehensively address all three phases of SRL (i.e., forethought, performance, or reflection) or to conduct in-depth analyses of one particular phase. Microanalysis has also been used across myriad domains (e.g., academic, athletic, clinical) and tasks (e.g., mathematics problem solving, basketball shooting, diagnostic reasoning) with samples encompassing elementary to graduate school. Although SRL microanalysis has typically been used to differentiate intervention conditions or existing groups (e.g., expert vs. novice), it has increasingly been used as a diagnostic tool to inform instructional and intervention planning. Additional information regarding the types of validity addressed in the studies are discussed, as well as implications for research and school practice.