Cited by 159Ethics and Social Impacts of AIArtificial Intelligence in EducationAI and HR Technologies

Implications of AI (un-)fairness in higher education admissions: the effects of perceived AI (un-)fairness on exit, voice and organizational reputation

Marcinkowski, Frank, Kieslich, Kimon, Starke, Christopher, Lünich, Marco·2020·Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency

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

Crossref · 10.1145/3351095.3372867

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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].”
  • AI-powered tutoring systems exhibit biases when assigning tasks to students.

    “AI-powered tutoring systems exhibit biases when assigning tasks to students [274,275].”
  • 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).”

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