Cited by 23Ethics and Social Impacts of AIExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection

Beyond Behaviorist Representational Harms: A Plan for Measurement and Mitigation

Open access
Chien, Jennifer, Danks, David·2024·The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency

Abstract

Algorithmic harms are commonly categorized as either allocative or representational. This study specifically addresses the latter, examining current definitions of representational harms to discern what is included and what is not. This analysis motivates our expansion beyond behavioral definitions to encompass harms to cognitive and affective states. The paper outlines high-level requirements for measurement: identifying the necessary expertise to implement this approach and illustrating it through a case study. Our work highlights the unique vulnerabilities of large language models to perpetrating representational harms, particularly when these harms go unmeasured and unmitigated. The work concludes by presenting proposed mitigations and delineating when to employ them. The overarching aim of this research is to establish a framework for broadening the definition of representational harms and to translate insights from fairness research into practical measurement and mitigation praxis.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3630106.3658946

Cites

65 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Existing research predominantly focuses on understanding, defining or evaluating representational 'harms' and often uses poor AI-generated images to elicit feedback from marginalized communities.

    “Our approach to defining and evaluating 'good' representation differs from existing research that predominantly focuses on understanding, defining or evaluating representational 'harms' [24, 28, 38, 44, 67, 77, 91, 116] and often uses poor AI-generated images to elicit feedback from marginalized communities (e.g., [65, 77, 79]).”

    From Engaging Communities Meaningfully in Defining Disability Representation for AI Image Generation (2026) · cites this paper as [24]

    The Introduction and Section 2 examine existing definitions of representational harms, supporting the citation’s use as an example of harm-focused research. The paper does not support the further claim that it uses poor AI-generated images to elicit feedback from marginalized communities; Section 4.1 recommends engaging affected communities but describes no such image-feedback exercise. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Outputs that appear neutral often encode majority or developer-preferred biases, entrenching representational harms and heightening safety risks.

    “Outputs that appear neutral often encode majority or developer-preferred biases, entrenching representational harms (Chien & Danks, 2024) and heightening safety risks such as susceptibility to propaganda or cultural domination.”

    From Benchmarking Overton Pluralism in LLMs (2025) · cites this paper as Chien & Danks, 2024

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 61

  1. Frances E Aboud and Morton J Mendelson. 1996. Determinants of friendship selection and quality: Developmental perspectives. The company they keep: Friendship in childhood and adolescence (1996), 87–112.
  2. Mike Ananny and Kate Crawford. 2018. Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. new media & society 20, 3 (2018), 973–989.
  3. Albert Bandura, Dorothea Ross, and Sheila A Ross. 1963. Imitation of film-mediated aggressive models.The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 66, 1 (1963), 3.
  4. Albert Bandura, C Barr Taylor, S Lloyd Williams, Ivan N Mefford, and Jack D Barchas. 1985. Catecholamine secretion as a function of perceived coping self-efficacy.Journal of consulting and clinical psychology 53, 3 (1985), 406.
  5. Daniel Boduszek and Agata Debowska. 2020. Feelings of Inadequacy Scale. In Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences. Springer, 1574–1576.
  6. Kenneth A Bollen and Rick H Hoyle. 1990. Perceived cohesion: A conceptual and empirical examination. Social forces 69, 2 (1990), 479–504.
  7. Thomas W Britt, Winny Shen, Robert R Sinclair, Matthew R Grossman, and David M Klieger. 2016. How much do we really know about employee resilience?Industrial and Organizational Psychology 9, 2 (2016), 378–404.
  8. Antonio Byrd. 2023. Truth-Telling: Critical Inquiries on LLMs and the Corpus Texts That Train Them.Composition Studies 51, 1 (2023), 135–142.
  9. Charles S Carver. 1997. You want to measure coping but your protocol’too long: Consider the brief cope. International journal of behavioral medicine 4, 1 (1997), 92–100.
  10. Matthew Chalmers and Ian MacColl. 2003. Seamful and seamless design in ubiquitous computing. In Workshop at the crossroads: The interaction of HCI and systems issues in UbiComp, Vol. 8.
  11. Myra Cheng, Esin Durmus, and Dan Jurafsky. 2023. Marked Personas: Using Natural Language Prompts to Measure Stereotypes in Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18189 (2023). · arXiv
  12. Rodney Clark, Norman B Anderson, Vernessa R Clark, and David R Williams. 1999. Racism as a stressor for African Americans: A biopsychosocial model.American psychologist 54, 10 (1999), 805.
  13. Laura Craig-Bray and Gerald R Adams. 1986. Different methodologies in the assessment of identity: Congruence between self-report and interview techniques?Journal of Youth and Adolescence 15, 3 (1986), 191–204.
  14. Ewart J De Visser, Samuel S Monfort, Ryan McKendrick, Melissa AB Smith, Patrick E McKnight, Frank Krueger, and Raja Parasuraman. 2016. Almost human: Anthropomorphism increases trust resilience in cognitive agents.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 22, 3 (2016), 331.
  15. Pieter Delobelle and Bettina Berendt. 2022. Fairdistillation: mitigating stereotyping in language models. In Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases. Springer, 638–654.
  16. Catherine D’ignazio and Lauren F Klein. 2023. Data feminism. MIT press.
  17. Jean Endicott, John Nee, Wilma Harrison, and Richard Blumenthal. 1993. Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire: a new measure.Psychopharmacology bulletin 29, 2 (1993), 321–326.
  18. Lisa K Fazio, Nadia M Brashier, B Keith Payne, and Elizabeth J Marsh. 2015. Knowledge does not protect against illusory truth.Journal of experimental psychology: general 144, 5 (2015), 993.
  19. David Gauntlett. 2008. Media, gender and identity: An introduction. Routledge.
  20. Amelia Glaese, Nat McAleese, Maja Trębacz, John Aslanides, Vlad Firoiu, Timo Ewalds, Maribeth Rauh, Laura Weidinger, Martin Chadwick, Phoebe Thacker, 2022. Improving alignment of dialogue agents via targeted human judgements. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14375 (2022). · arXiv
  21. Lana Ruvolo Grasser. 2022. Addressing mental health concerns in refugees and displaced populations: is enough being done?Risk management and healthcare policy (2022), 909–922.
  22. Sophia Harrison, Eleonora Gualdoni, and Gemma Boleda. 2023. Run Like a Girl! Sports-Related Gender Bias in Language and Vision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14468 (2023). · arXiv
  23. Aumyo Hassan and Sarah J Barber. 2021. The effects of repetition frequency on the illusory truth effect. Cognitive research: principles and implications 6, 1 (2021), 1–12.
  24. Leslie RM Hausmann, Janet Ward Schofield, and Rochelle L Woods. 2007. Sense of belonging as a predictor of intentions to persist among African American and White first-year college students. Research in higher education 48 (2007), 803–839.
  25. Marc W Heerdink, Gerben A Van Kleef, Astrid C Homan, and Agneta H Fischer. 2013. On the social influence of emotions in groups: interpersonal effects of anger and happiness on conformity versus deviance.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 105, 2 (2013), 262.
  26. Anne S Helsdingen, Karel Van den Bosch, Tamara Van Gog, and Jeroen JG van Merriënboer. 2010. The effects of critical thinking instruction on training complex decision making. Human factors 52, 4 (2010), 537–545.
  27. Ingvild Oxås Henriksen, Ingunn Ranøyen, Marit Sæbø Indredavik, and Frode Stenseng. 2017. The role of self-esteem in the development of psychiatric problems: a three-year prospective study in a clinical sample of adolescents. Child and adolescent psychiatry and mental health 11 (2017), 1–9.
  28. Fernanda Herrera and Jeremy N Bailenson. 2021. Virtual reality perspective-taking at scale: Effect of avatar representation, choice, and head movement on prosocial behaviors. new media & society 23, 8 (2021), 2189–2209.
  29. 10.1016/j.psychsport.2013.09.001 · DOI
  30. Saghar Hosseini, Hamid Palangi, and Ahmed Hassan Awadallah. 2023. An Empirical Study of Metrics to Measure Representational Harms in Pre-Trained Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.09211 (2023). · arXiv
  31. Rebecca L Johnson, Giada Pistilli, Natalia Menédez-González, Leslye Denisse Dias Duran, Enrico Panai, Julija Kalpokiene, and Donald Jay Bertulfo. 2022. The Ghost in the Machine has an American accent: value conflict in GPT-3. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.07785 (2022). · arXiv
  32. Jared Katzman, Angelina Wang, Morgan Scheuerman, Su Lin Blodgett, Kristen Laird, Hanna Wallach, and Solon Barocas. 2023. Taxonomizing and Measuring Representational Harms: A Look at Image Tagging. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.01776 (2023). · arXiv
  33. Youjeong Kim and S Shyam Sundar. 2012. Anthropomorphism of computers: Is it mindful or mindless?Computers in Human Behavior 28, 1 (2012), 241–250.
  34. Mark R Leary. 2015. Emotional responses to interpersonal rejection. Dialogues in clinical neuroscience (2015).
  35. Robert W Lent, Steven D Brown, Gail Hackett, 2002. Social cognitive career theory. Career choice and development 4, 1 (2002), 255–311.
  36. Q Vera Liao and Jennifer Wortman Vaughan. 2023. AI Transparency in the Age of LLMs: A Human-Centered Research Roadmap. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.01941 (2023). · arXiv
  37. Anne Maass, Daniela Salvi, Luciano Arcuri, and Gün R Semin. 1989. Language use in intergroup contexts: The linguistic intergroup bias.Journal of personality and social psychology 57, 6 (1989), 981.
  38. Allison Master, Sapna Cheryan, and Andrew N Meltzoff. 2016. Computing whether she belongs: Stereotypes undermine girls’ interest and sense of belonging in computer science.Journal of educational psychology 108, 3 (2016), 424.
  39. 10.3390/ijerph182312357 · DOI
  40. Thinh On, Subhodeep Ghosh, Mengnan Du, and Senjuti Basu Roy. 2002. Proportionate Diversification of Top-k LLM Results using Database Queries. DEF 2 (2002), 1.
  41. Cory Owen. 2015. The" model Minority" Myth and Its Impact on Anxiety and Stress on Asian American Students. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Houston.
  42. Jennifer O’Meara. 2016. What “The Bechdel Test” doesn’t tell us: examining women’s verbal and vocal (dis) empowerment in cinema. Feminist media studies 16, 6 (2016), 1120–1123.
  43. Leonard I Pearlin. 1989. The sociological study of stress. Journal of health and social behavior (1989), 241–256.
  44. Christopher Peterson, Steven F Maier, and Martin EP Seligman. 1993. Learned helplessness: A theory for the age of personal control. Oxford University Press, USA.
  45. Jean S Phinney, Bruce T Lochner, and Rodolfo Murphy. 1990. Ethnic identity development and psychological adjustment in adolescence.Sage Publications, Inc.
  46. Dimitrios Pnevmatikos, Panagiota Christodoulou, and Nikolaos Fachantidis. 2020. STAKEHOLDERS’INVOLVEMENT IN PARTICIPATORY DESIGN APPROACHES OF LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. EDULEARN20 proceedings (2020), 5543–5552.
  47. M Afzalur Rahim. 1983. Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory–II. Journal of Applied Psychology (1983).
  48. P Neal Ritchey and Harold D Fishbein. 2001. The lack of an association between adolescent friends’ prejudices and stereotypes. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly (1982-) (2001), 188–206.
  49. Steven O Roberts, Carmelle Bareket-Shavit, Forrest A Dollins, Peter D Goldie, and Elizabeth Mortenson. 2020. Racial inequality in psychological research: Trends of the past and recommendations for the future. Perspectives on psychological science 15, 6 (2020), 1295–1309.
  50. M Seligman. 1975. Helplessness: On Depression, Development, and Death.” an Francisco.
  51. Gün R Semin and Klaus Fiedler. 1988. The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language.Journal of personality and Social Psychology 54, 4 (1988), 558.
  52. Michael D Slater. 2007. Reinforcing spirals: The mutual influence of media selectivity and media effects and their impact on individual behavior and social identity. Communication theory 17, 3 (2007), 281–303.
  53. Irene Solaiman, Zeerak Talat, William Agnew, Lama Ahmad, Dylan Baker, Su Lin Blodgett, Hal Daumé III, Jesse Dodge, Ellie Evans, Sara Hooker, 2023. Evaluating the Social Impact of Generative AI Systems in Systems and Society. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05949 (2023). · arXiv
  54. Russell Spears, Bertjan Doosje, and Naomi Ellemers. 1997. Self-stereotyping in the face of threats to group status and distinctiveness: The role of group identification. Personality and social psychology bulletin 23, 5 (1997), 538–553.
  55. 10.3390/ijerph19137640 · DOI
  56. 10.1145/3514094.3539567 · DOI
  57. Laura Weidinger, John Mellor, Maribeth Rauh, Conor Griffin, Jonathan Uesato, Po-Sen Huang, Myra Cheng, Mia Glaese, Borja Balle, Atoosa Kasirzadeh, 2021. Ethical and social risks of harm from language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.04359 (2021). · arXiv
  58. Marc Weiser. 1994. The world is not a desktop. interactions 1, 1 (1994), 7–8.
  59. Frieda Wong and Richard Halgin. 2006. The “model minority”: Bane or blessing for Asian Americans?Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development 34, 1 (2006), 38–49.
  60. Yue Yu, Yuchen Zhuang, Jieyu Zhang, Yu Meng, Alexander Ratner, Ranjay Krishna, Jiaming Shen, and Chao Zhang. 2023. Large language model as attributed training data generator: A tale of diversity and bias. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.15895 (2023). · arXiv
  61. Kaitlyn Zhou, Kawin Ethayarajh, and Dan Jurafsky. 2022. Richer countries and richer representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.05093 (2022). · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chien, J., & Danks, D.
Affiliations
University of California San Diego (US)
Venue
The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency
Publisher
ACM
Published
2024-06-03
Pages
933-946
OpenAlex
W4391591617
Cited by
22
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 2
FWCI
10.04
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
Keywords
representational harm, algorithmic harms, large language models

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