Simulation Experiments on (the Absence of) Ratings Bias in Reputation Systems
Abstract
As the gig economy continues to grow and freelance work moves online, five-star reputation systems are becoming more and more common. At the same time, there are increasing accounts of race and gender bias in evaluations of gig workers, with negative impacts for those workers. We report on a series of four Mechanical Turk-based studies in which participants who rated simulated gig work did not show race- or gender bias, while manipulation checks showed they reliably distinguished between low- and high-quality work. Given prior research, this was a striking result. To explore further, we used a Bayesian approach to verify absence of ratings bias (as opposed to merely not detecting bias). This Bayesian test let us identify an upper- bound: if any bias did exist in our studies, it was below an average of 0.2 stars on a five-star scale. We discuss possible interpretations of our results and outline future work to better understand the results.
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?
Deactivation is a common penalty used by platforms to punish underperforming gig workers based on their activity, reputation, and work records.
“Deactivation is a common penalty used by platforms to punish underperforming gig workers based on their activity, reputation, and work records (Thebault-Spieker et al., 2017).”
From Socio‐technical issues in the platform‐mediated gig economy: A systematic literature review: An Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST) paper (2024) · cites this paper as Thebault-Spieker et al., 2017
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 73 · Cited by 26
- Authors
- Thebault-Spieker, J., Kluver, D., Klein, M. A., Halfaker, A., Hecht, B., Terveen, L., & Konstan, J. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Minnesota (US)
- Wikimedia Foundation (US)
- Northwestern University (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
- Published
- 2017-12-06
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- CSCW
- Pages
- 1-25
- ISSN
- 2573-0142 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2772178154
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 73
- Citations by year
- 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 8
- FWCI
- 7.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (0964695, 1218826, 1111201, 1017697, IIS-1707296, IIS-1707319)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Names, Identity, and Discrimination Research
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Economy and Work Transformation
- Keywords
- rating bias, reputation systems, gig economy, freelancing, racial bias, gender bias, online assessment, five-star rating, Bayesian hypothesis testing, manipulation checks, Mechanical Turk
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