Understanding Relations Between Perception of Fairness and Trust in Algorithmic Decision Making
Open accessAbstract
The adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is currently under scrutiny due to various concerns such as fairness, and how does the fairness of an AI algorithm affects user's trust is much legitimate to pursue. In this regard, we aim to understand the relationship between induced algorithmic fairness and its perception in humans. In particular, we are interested in whether these two are positively correlated and reflect substantive fairness. Furthermore, we also study how does induced algorithmic fairness affects user trust in algorithmic decision making. To understand this, we perform a user study to simulate candidate shortlisting by introduced (manipulating mathematical) fairness in a human resource recruitment setting. Our experimental results demonstrate that different levels of introduced fairness are positively related to human perception of fairness, and simultaneously it is also positively related to user trust in algorithmic decision making. Interestingly, we also found that users are more sensitive to the higher levels of introduced fairness than the lower levels of introduced fairness. Besides, we summarize the theoretical and practical implications of this research with a discussion on nercention of fairness.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Mathematical fairness inherently introduced by AI models and/or data can affect people's perceived fairness.
“Besides explanation types, mathematical fairness inherently introduced by AI models and/or data (also refers to introduced fairness in this paper) can affect people's perceived fairness [3].”
From Fairness and Explanation in AI-Informed Decision Making (2022) · cites this paper as [3]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 39 · Cited by 36
- Authors
- Zhou, J., Verma, S., Mittal, M., & Chen, F.
- Affiliations
- University of Technology Sydney (AU)
- Venue
- 2021 8th International Conference on Behavioral and Social Computing (BESC)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2021-10-29
- Pages
- 1-5
- OpenAlex
- W3202755633
- Cited by
- 36
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 4
- FWCI
- 4.75
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Conference on Behavioral, Economic, and Socio-Cultural Computing (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › AI and HR Technologies
- Keywords
- algorithmic fairness, perceived fairness, trust in algorithms, algorithmic decision-making, artificial intelligence adoption, personnel selection, shortlisting
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review