The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Factors Influencing Perceived Fairness in Algorithmic Decision-Making: Algorithm Outcomes, Development Procedures, and Individual Differences
Abstract
Algorithmic decision-making systems are increasingly used throughout the public and private sectors to make important decisions or assist humans in making these decisions with real social consequences. While there has been substantial research in recent years to build fair decision-making algorithms, there has been less research seeking to understand the factors that affect people's perceptions of fairness in these systems, which we argue is also important for their broader acceptance. In this research, we conduct an online experiment to better understand perceptions of fairness, focusing on three sets of factors: algorithm outcomes, algorithm development and deployment procedures, and individual differences. We find that people rate the algorithm as more fair when the algorithm predicts in their favor, even surpassing the negative effects of describing algorithms that are very biased against particular demographic groups. We find that this effect is moderated by several variables, including participants' education level, gender, and several aspects of the development procedure. Our findings suggest that systems that evaluate algorithmic fairness through users' feedback must consider the possibility of "outcome favorability" bias.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“As opposed to some previous work where a human would supervise each decision made by the algorithmic system [103] -the authors did not fnd any evidence of this confguration afecting fairness perceptions-”
From Disentangling Fairness Perceptions in Algorithmic Decision-Making: the Effects of Explanations, Human Oversight, and Contestability (2023) · cites this paper as [103]
In the citing paper
“These results resonate with earlier work on the topic [103], where a case-by-case human intervention did not contribute to perceptions of fairness.”
From Disentangling Fairness Perceptions in Algorithmic Decision-Making: the Effects of Explanations, Human Oversight, and Contestability (2023) · cites this paper as [103]
In the citing paper
“The reason behind this design choice was to minimize, as far as possible, the outcome favourability bias [103].”
From Disentangling Fairness Perceptions in Algorithmic Decision-Making: the Effects of Explanations, Human Oversight, and Contestability (2023) · cites this paper as [103]
In the citing paper
“This increased efficiency is likely to increase consumers' evaluations of chatbot-based results as more fair and objective [70,71].”
From Consumer Responses to Generative AI Chatbots Versus Search Engines for Product Evaluation (2025) · cites this paper as [71]
In the citing paper
“Furthermore, the ability of AI chatbots to provide quick, complete, and direct answers to consumer queries is known to increase the perceived objectivity of the search results [71].”
From Consumer Responses to Generative AI Chatbots Versus Search Engines for Product Evaluation (2025) · cites this paper as [71]
Citations
Cites
Advances In Experimental Social Psychology
(2022) · Advances in experimental social psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(22)x0002-6 · Cited by 22,559
"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier
Ribeiro, M. T., Singh, S., & Guestrin, C. (2016) · Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/2939672.2939778 · Cited by 17,555
(1997) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.34-3702 · Cited by 4,872
Machines and Mindlessness: Social Responses to Computers
Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00153 · Cited by 4,022
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
Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err.
Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P., & Massey, C. (2015) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/xge0000033 · Cited by 3,232
Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learning
Hardt, M., Price, E., & Srebro, N. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1610.02413 · Cited by 2,536
Hatfield, E. C., Walster, G. W., Berscheid, E., Austin, W. G., Traupmann, J., & Utne, M. K. (1978) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 2,387
Network Dissection: Quantifying Interpretability of Deep Visual Representations
Bau, D., Zhou, B., Khosla, A., Oliva, A., & Torralba, A. (2017) · 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2017.354 · Cited by 1,389
Rivera, L. A. (2012) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/0003122412463213 · Cited by 1,371
Research works printed but not linked: 21
- Alekh Agarwal, Alina Beygelzimer, Miroslav Dudík, John Langford, and Hanna Wallach. 2018. A reductions approach to fair classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.02453 (2018). · arXiv
- Julia Angwin, Jeff Larson, Surya Mattu, and Lauren Kirchner. 2016. Machine Bias. (May 2016). https://www.propublica.org/article/ machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing
- 10.1177/0049124118782533 · DOI · Paper page
- Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru. 2018. Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency. 77--91.
- Pew Research Center. 2016a. Mechanical Turk: Research in the Crowdsourcing Age. (July 2016). https://www.pewinternet.org/2016/07/11/ research-in-the-crowdsourcing-age-a-case-study/
- Pew Research Center. 2016b. On Views of Race and Inequality, Blacks and Whites Are Worlds Apart. (June 2016). https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/06/27/onviews-of-race-and-inequality-blacks-and-whites-areworlds-apart/.
- Alexandra Chouldechova and Aaron Roth. 2018. The frontiers of fairness in machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.08810 (2018). · arXiv
- Bo Cowgill. 2018. Bias and Productivity in Humans and Algorithms: Theory and Evidence from Resume Screening. Columbia Business School, Columbia University 29 (2018).
- Cynthia Dwork, Nicole Immorlica, Adam Tauman Kalai, and Max Leiserson. 2018. Decoupled classifiers for group-fair and efficient machine learning. In Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency. 119--133.
- Nikolaus Franke, Peter Keinz, and Katharina Klausberger. 2013. ?Does this sound like a fair deal?": Antecedents and consequences of fairness expectations in the individual's decision to participate in firm innovation. Organization science 24, 5 (2013), 1495--1516.
- Megan French and Jeff Hancock. 2017. What's the folk theory? Reasoning about cyber-social systems. Available at SSRN (2017). https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2910571
- Jon Kleinberg, Sendhil Mullainathan, and Manish Raghavan. 2016. Inherent trade-offs in the fair determination of risk scores. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.05807 (2016). · arXiv
- 10.5555/3305381.3305576 · DOI
- Louise Matsakis. 2016. The Unknown, Poorly Paid Labor Force Powering Academic Research. (Feb. 2016). https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8q8ggb/ the-unknown-poorly-paid-labor-force-powering-academic-research
- Aditya Krishna Menon and Robert C Williamson. 2018. The cost of fairness in binary classification. In Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency. 107--118.
- Diana C Mutz and Jeffery J Mondak. 1997. Dimensions of sociotropic behavior: Group-based judgements of fairness and well-being. American Journal of Political Science (1997), 284--308.
- Emma Pierson. 2017. Demographics and discussion influence views on algorithmic fairness. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.09124 (2017). · arXiv
- Carrie Pomeroy. 2019. How community members in Ramsey County stopped a big-data plan from flagging students as at-risk. (Feb. 2019). https://www.tcdailyplanet.net/how-communitymembers-in-ramsey-county-stopped-a-big-data-planfrom-flagging-students-as-at-risk/.
- Forough Poursabzi-Sangdeh, Daniel G Goldstein, Jake M Hofman, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, and Hanna Wallach. 2018. Manipulating and measuring model interpretability. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.07810 (2018). · arXiv
- Daniel B Shank. 2012. Perceived Justice and Reactions to Coercive Computers. In Sociological Forum, Vol. 27. Wiley Online Library, 372--391.
- Megha Srivastava, Hoda Heidari, and Andreas Krause. 2019. Mathematical Notions vs. Human Perception of Fairness: A Descriptive Approach to Fairness for Machine Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.04783 (2019). · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–211 of 211
Understanding User Experience in AI-Based Evaluation Systems: A Systematic Literature Review
Park, H., Chung, G., Kim, C., & Kim, H. K. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-29653-5_21
Datafication and Digital Welfare
Bottoni, G., & Iazzetta, F. (2026) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-8423-8.ch011
Applicant Reactions to Artificial Intelligence in Personnel Selection
Langer, M., & Basch, J. M. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197809013.003.0030
Perspectives of Healthcare Professionals on Using AI and Algorithmic Bias
Xu, J., & Babaian, T. (2026) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-34459-5_1
Fairness, Bias, and Equity in Algorithmic Systems
Cook, D. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-52643-5_263-1
Liu, D., & Fan, G. F. (2026) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/20563051261475922
Li, Z., Ma, Z., He, S., Lu, Z., Xiao, Z., & Yin, M. (2026) · ACM Conference on Human-AI Complementarity and Alignment · doi:10.1145/3834580.3838738
User-Friendly AI-Based Decision Support Systems
Echeverry, N. (2026) · International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction Workshops and Demos (ACIIW) · doi:10.1109/aciiw71585.2026.11712078
Zipperling, D., Deck, L., Lanzl, J., & Kühl, N. (2026) · ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1145/3858913
Zhang, W. Z., Marder, B. L., & Cowan, K. L. (2026) · Information Technology and People · doi:10.1108/itp-05-2025-0718
van Ooijen, I., Schaap, G., van Bekkum, M., & Borgesius, F. Z. (2026) · Computers in Human Behavior Reports · doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2026.101395
Metadata
- Authors
- Wang, R., Harper, F. M., & Zhu, H.
- Affiliations
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- Amazon (United States) (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2020-04-21
- Pages
- 1-14
- OpenAlex
- W3029022080
- Semantic Scholar
- 6d847d92ed6efbcd322549f732c014e9bfb1c45d
- Cited by
- 211
- References
- 58
- Citations by year
- 2026: 30 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 3
- FWCI
- 27.75
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (IIS-2001851, IIS-2000782, IIS-1939606)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › 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
- perceived fairness, algorithmic decision-making, algorithmic fairness, algorithmic bias, individual differences, user feedback, educational attainment, gender differences
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
