Implications of AI (un-)fairness in higher education admissions: the effects of perceived AI (un-)fairness on exit, voice and organizational reputation
Abstract
Algorithmic decision-making (ADM) is becoming increasingly important in all areas of social life. In higher education, machine-learning systems have manifold uses because they can efficiently process large amounts of student data and use these data to arrive at effective decisions. Despite the potential upsides of ADM systems, fairness concerns are gaining momentum in academic and public discourses. The criticism largely focuses on the disparate effects of ADM. That is, algorithms may not serve as objective and fair decision-makers but, rather, reproduce biases existing within the respective training data. This study adopted a different approach by focusing on individual perceptions of fairness. Specifically, we looked at two different dimensions of perceived fairness: (i) procedural fairness and (ii) distributive fairness. Using cross-sectional survey data (n = 304) from a large German university, we tested whether students' assessments of fairness differ with respect to algorithmic vs. human decision-making (HDM) within the higher education context. Furthermore, we investigated whether fairness perceptions have subsequent effects on three different outcome variables, which are hugely important for universities: (1) exit, (2) voice, and (3) organizational reputation. The results of our survey suggest that participants evaluated ADM higher than HDM in terms of both procedural and distributive fairness. Concerning the subsequent effects of fairness perceptions, we find that (1) distributive fairness as well as procedural fairness perceptions have a negative impact on the intention to protest against an ADM system, whereas (2) only procedural fairness perceptions negatively affect the likelihood of exiting. Finally, (3) distributive fairness, but not procedural fairness perceptions have a positive effect on organizational reputation. For universities aiming to implement ADM systems, it is crucial, therefore, to take possible fairness issues and their further implications into account.
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?
The use of algorithmic decision making (ADM) by tertiary institutions to admit students to programs raises issues of fairness and objectivity.
“Additionally, the use of algorithmic decision making (ADM) by tertiary institutions to admit students to programs raises issues of fairness and objectivity [20].”
From New Era of Artificial Intelligence in Education: Towards a Sustainable Multifaceted Revolution (2023) · cites this paper as [20]
AI-powered tutoring systems exhibit biases when assigning tasks to students.
“AI-powered tutoring systems exhibit biases when assigning tasks to students [274,275].”
From AI Fairness in Data Management and Analytics: A Review on Challenges, Methodologies and Applications (2023) · cites this paper as [274]
University students in a recent survey rated algorithmic decision-making (ADM) higher than human decision-making (HDM) in admission decisions in both procedural and distributive fairness aspects.
“Despite concerns regarding fairness and ethics, interestingly, university students in a recent survey rated algorithmic decision-making (ADM) higher than human decision-making (HDM) in admission decisions in both procedural and distributive fairness aspects (Marcinkowski et al., 2020).”
From Proactive and reactive engagement of artificial intelligence methods for education: a review (2023) · cites this paper as Marcinkowski et al., 2020
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 33 · Cited by 159
- Authors
- Marcinkowski, F., Kieslich, K., Starke, C., & Lünich, M.
- Affiliations
- Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf (DE)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2020-01-27
- Pages
- 122-130
- OpenAlex
- W3002654242
- Cited by
- 159
- References
- 33
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 4
- FWCI
- 20.79
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Volkswagen Foundation (Az 95 998)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › AI and HR Technologies
- Keywords
- algorithmic decision-making, university admission, perceived fairness, procedural justice, distributive fairness, exit, voice and loyalty, organizational reputation, student perceptions, algorithmic bias, university students
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