The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Human Perceptions of Fairness in Algorithmic Decision Making: A Case Study of Criminal Risk Prediction
Open accessAbstract
As algorithms are increasingly used to make important decisions that affect human lives, ranging from social benefit assignment to predicting risk of criminal recidivism, concerns have been raised about the fairness of algorithmic decision making. Most prior works on algorithmic fairness normatively prescribe how fair decisions ought to be made. In contrast, here, we descriptively survey users for how they perceive and reason about fairness in algorithmic decision making. A key contribution of this work is the framework we propose to understand why people perceive certain features as fair or unfair to be used in algorithms. Our framework identifies eight properties of features, such as relevance, volitionality and reliability, as latent considerations that inform people»s moral judgments about the fairness of feature use in decision-making algorithms. We validate our framework through a series of scenario-based surveys with 576 people. We find that, based on a person»s assessment of the eight latent properties of a feature in our exemplar scenario, we can accurately (> 85%) predict if the person will judge the use of the feature as fair. Our findings have important implications. At a high-level, we show that people»s unfairness concerns are multi-dimensional and argue that future studies need to address unfairness concerns beyond discrimination. At a low-level, we find considerable disagreements in people»s fairness judgments. We identify root causes of the disagreements, and note possible pathways to resolve them.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa · Cited by 194,414
A Mathematical Theory of Communication
Shannon, C. E. (1948) · Bell System Technical Journal · doi:10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x · Cited by 88,486
Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python
Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Müller, A., Nothman, J., Louppe, G., et al. (2012) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1201.0490 · Cited by 71,016
A Mathematical Theory of Communication
Shannon, C. E. (1948) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb00917.x · Cited by 50,387
Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach.
Guthery, F. S., Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2003) · The Journal of Wildlife Management · doi:10.2307/3802723 · Cited by 41,495
On Information and Sufficiency
Kullback, S., & Leibler, R. A. (1951) · The Annals of Mathematical Statistics · doi:10.1214/aoms/1177729694 · Cited by 20,193
Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality, Data?
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691610393980 · Cited by 9,996
Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346 · Cited by 4,037
Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk
Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500002205 · Cited by 3,767
Dwork, C., Hardt, M., Pitassi, T., Reingold, O., & Zemel, R. (2012) · Proceedings of the 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference · doi:10.1145/2090236.2090255 · Cited by 3,501
What Is the Point of Equality?
Anderson, E. S. (1999) · Ethics · doi:10.1086/233897 · Cited by 3,232
Barocas, S., & Selbst, A. D. (2014) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2477899 · Cited by 3,048
Fair prediction with disparate impact: a study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments
Chouldechova, A. (2017) · Big Data · doi:10.1089/big.2016.0047 · Cited by 2,159
Cognitive Interviewing: A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design
Willis, G. (2004) · Cited by 1,934
Certifying and Removing Disparate Impact
Feldman, M., Friedler, S. A., Moeller, J., Scheidegger, C., & Venkatasubramanian, S. (2015) · Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/2783258.2783311 · Cited by 1,827
Willis, G. (2005) · doi:10.4135/9781412983655 · Cited by 1,778
Behavioral Decision Theory: Processes of Judgement and Choice
Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1981) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.32.020181.000413 · Cited by 1,691
Algorithmic Decision Making and the Cost of Fairness
Corbett-Davies, S., Pierson, E., Feller, A., Goel, S., & Huq, A. (2017) · Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/3097983.3098095 · Cited by 1,149
(2013) · Cited by 1,126
Who are the crowdworkers?: shifting demographics in mechanical turk
Ross, J., Irani, L., Silberman, M. S., Zaldivar, A., & Tomlinson, B. (2010) · CHI '10 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1753846.1753873 · Cited by 1,004
Kusner, M. J., Loftus, J. R., Russell, C., & Silva, R. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1703.06856 · Cited by 995
Inherent trade-offs in the fair determination of risk scores
Kleinberg, J., Mullainathan, S., & Raghavan, M. (2017) · Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik · doi:10.4230/lipics.itcs.2017.43 · Cited by 943 · cited 1×
“s of direct and indirect discrimination and provide mechanisms [17, 21, 32, 40, 47, 60–62] for non-discriminatory learning, as well as examining the feasibility of making non-discriminatory decisions [12, 14, 24, 35]. Existing studies of algorithmic fairness are largely normative (prescriptive) in nature, i.e., they b…”
BackgroundPresser, S., Rossi, P. H., Wright, J. D., & Anderson, A. B. (1985) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2578982 · Cited by 921
Luck Egalitarianism and Prioritarianism
Arneson, R. J. (2000) · Ethics · doi:10.1086/233272 · Cited by 856
Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questionnaires
(2004) · doi:10.1002/0471654728 · Cited by 855
Discrimination-aware data mining
Pedreshi, D., Ruggieri, S., & Turini, F. (2008) · Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining · doi:10.1145/1401890.1401959 · Cited by 676
Fairness Constraints: Mechanisms for Fair Classification
Zafar, M. B., Valera, I., Rodriguez, M. G., & Gummadi, K. P. (2015) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1507.05259 · Cited by 645
Self-citationZafar, M. B., Valera, I., Gomez Rodriguez, M., & Gummadi, K. P. (2017) · Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web · doi:10.1145/3038912.3052660 · Cited by 632
Self-citationDemographics of Mechanical Turk
Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010) · Faculty Digital Archive (New York University Florence) · Cited by 494
UNEMPLOYMENT, POVERTY AND SOCIAL ISOLATION: Is there a vicious circle of social exclusion?
Gallie, D., Paugam, S., & Jacobs, S. C. (2003) · European Societies · doi:10.1080/1461669032000057668 · Cited by 368
Avoiding Discrimination through Causal Reasoning
Kilbertus, N., Rojas-Carulla, M., Parascandolo, G., Hardt, M., Janzing, D., & Schölkopf, B. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1706.02744 · Cited by 358
Consensus and dissention: A measure of ordinal dispersion
Tastle, W. J., & Wierman, M. J. (2006) · International Journal of Approximate Reasoning · doi:10.1016/j.ijar.2006.06.024 · Cited by 286
Is There a Consensus among Economists in the 1990's?
Alston, R. M., Kearl, J. R., & Vaughan, M. (1992) · American Economic Review · Cited by 271
k-NN as an implementation of situation testing for discrimination discovery and prevention
Luong, B. T., Ruggieri, S., & Turini, F. (2011) · Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining · doi:10.1145/2020408.2020488 · Cited by 263
Data mining for discrimination discovery
Ruggieri, S., Pedreschi, D., & Turini, F. (2010) · TKDD · doi:10.1145/1754428.1754432 · Cited by 250
On the (im)possibility of fairness
Friedler, S. A., Scheidegger, C., & Venkatasubramanian, S. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1609.07236 · Cited by 247
Flores, A. W., Bechtel, K., & Lowenkamp, C. T. (2016) · Federal probation · Cited by 240
Consensus and Dissension among Economists: An Empirical Inquiry
Frey, B. S. (1984) · American Economic Review · Cited by 194
Grgić-Hlača, N., Zafar, M. B., Gummadi, K. P., & Weller, A. (2018) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v32i1.11296 · Cited by 184
Self-citationRisk Attitudes and the ‘Vicious Circle of Poverty’
Mosley, P., & Verschoor, A. (2005) · European Journal of Development Research · doi:10.1080/09578810500066548 · Cited by 156
The Case for Process Fairness in Learning: Feature Selection for Fair Decision Making
Grgić-Hlača, N., Zafar, M. B., Gummadi, K. P., & Weller, A. (2016) · MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) · Cited by 137
Self-citationWhen Worlds Collide: Integrating Different Counterfactual Assumptions in Fairness
Russell, C., Kusner, M. J., Loftus, J. R., & Silva, R. (2017) · Surrey Research Insight Open Access (The University of Surrey) · doi:10.5555/3295222.3295388 · Cited by 129
Inherent Trade-Offs in Algorithmic Fairness
Kleinberg, J. (2018) · Abstracts of the 2018 ACM International Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems · doi:10.1145/3219617.3219634 · Cited by 125
Exposing the probabilistic causal structure of discrimination
Bonchi, F., Hajian, S., Mishra, B., & Ramazzotti, D. (2017) · International Journal of Data Science and Analytics · doi:10.1007/s41060-016-0040-z · Cited by 86
Herrera‐Viedma, E., Zadrożny, S., Nurmi, H., Fedrizzi, M., Kacprzyk, J., & Garcı́a-Lapresta, J. L. (2011) · Studies in fuzziness and soft computing · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-20533-0 · Cited by 68
Ban the Box, Criminal Records, and Statistical Discrimination: A Field ExperimentPreprint
Agan, A., & Starr, S. B. (2016) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2795795 · Cited by 57
A Summary of Survey Methodology Best Practices for Security and Privacy Researchers
Redmiles, E. M., Acar, Y., Fahl, S., & Mazurek, M. L. (2017) · Digital Repository at the University of Maryland · doi:10.13016/m22k2w · Cited by 50
Self-citationAnti-discrimination learning: a causal modeling-based framework
Zhang, L., & Wu, X. (2017) · International Journal of Data Science and Analytics · doi:10.1007/s41060-017-0058-x · Cited by 48
Albar, F. M., & Jetter, A. J. M. (2009) · Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET) · doi:10.1109/picmet.2009.5262123 · Cited by 47
Nabi, R., & Shpitser, I. (2018) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v32i1.11553 · Cited by 20
Naudts, L. (2017) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3043707 · Cited by 4
(1967) · Aslib Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1108/eb050121 · Cited by 3
(1914) · Victorian reports · doi:10.25291/vr/1914-vlr-652 · Cited by 1
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 54 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Bernard Gert and Joshua Gert. 2017. The Definition of Morality. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (Ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
- Pew Research Center. 2016. 2016 Party Identification Detailed Tables. (2016). http: //www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/2016-party-identification-detailed-tables/
- Bilal Qureshi, Faisal Kamiran, Asim Karim, and Salvatore Ruggieri. 2016. Causal Discrimination Discovery Through Propensity Score Analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.03735 (2016). · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Algorithmic bias: review, synthesis, and future research directions
Kordzadeh, N., & Ghasemaghaei, M. (2022) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1080/0960085x.2021.1927212 · Cited by 770
Fairness in machine learning: A survey
Caton, S., & Haas, C. (2024) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3616865 · Cited by 646
A Review on Fairness in Machine Learning
Pessach, D., & Shmueli, E. (2023) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3494672 · Cited by 598
Interpretable deep learning: interpretation, interpretability, trustworthiness, and beyond
Li, X., Xiong, H., Li, X., Wu, X., Zhang, X., Liu, J., Bian, J., & Dou, D. (2022) · Knowledge and Information Systems · doi:10.1007/s10115-022-01756-8 · Cited by 579
The ethics of algorithms: key problems and solutions
Tsamados, A., Aggarwal, N., Cowls, J., Morley, J., Roberts, H., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2022) · AI & SOCIETY · doi:10.1007/s00146-021-01154-8 · Cited by 384
Metadata
- Authors
- Grgic-Hlaca, N., Redmiles, E. M., Gummadi, K. P., & Weller, A.
- Affiliations
- Max Planck Institute for Software Systems (MPI-SWS) & Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany
- University of Maryland, College Park (US)
- Max Planck Institute for Software Systems (DE)
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference on World Wide Web - WWW '18
- Publisher
- ACM Press
- Published
- 2018
- Pages
- 903-912
- OpenAlex
- W2964316623
- Cited by
- 207
- References
- 54
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 4
- FWCI
- 38.49
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program (DGE 1322106)
- Leverhulme Trust via the CFI
- The Alan Turing Institute under EPSRC grant (EP/N510129/1 & TU/B/000074)
- David MacKay Newton research fellowship at Darwin College
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
- Keywords
- algorithmic fairness, perceived fairness, algorithmic decision-making, feature relevance, volitionality, reliability, moral judgment, fairness judgments
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
