Cited by 817Hate Speech and Cyberbullying DetectionEthics and Social Impacts of AISentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining

The Risk of Racial Bias in Hate Speech Detection

Open access
Sap, Maarten, Card, Dallas, Gabriel, Saadia, Choi, Yejin, Smith, Noah A.·2019·Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics

Abstract

We investigate how annotators' insensitivity to differences in dialect can lead to racial bias in automatic hate speech detection models, potentially amplifying harm against minority populations.We first uncover unexpected correlations between surface markers of African American English (AAE) and ratings of toxicity in several widely-used hate speech datasets.Then, we show that models trained on these corpora acquire and propagate these biases, such that AAE tweets and tweets by self-identified African Americans are up to two times more likely to be labelled as offensive compared to others.Finally, we propose dialect and race priming as ways to reduce the racial bias in annotation, showing that when annotators are made explicitly aware of an AAE tweet's dialect they are significantly less likely to label the tweet as offensive.

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 · 10.18653/v1/p19-1163

Cites

40 of 40 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?

  • Toxicity detection models misclassify African-American English tweets as negative more often than those written in Standard American English.

    “Toxicity detection models misclassify African-American English tweets as negative more often than those written in Standard American English (Mozafari, Farahbakhsh, and Crespi 2020; Sap et al. 2019).”

    From Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey (2024) · cites this paper as Sap et al. 2019

  • Toxicity classifiers may disproportionately flag African-American English.

    “For example, toxicity classifiers may disproportionately flag African-American English (Mozafari, Farahbakhsh, and Crespi 2020; Sap et al. 2019)”

    From Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey (2024) · cites this paper as Sap et al. 2019

  • Models trained with historical data can present issues such as gender bias and racial bias, potentially exacerbating structural inequalities.

    “models are trained with historical data and can present issues such as gender bias and racial bias in AI models [68,73], potentially exacerbating structural inequalities [10]”

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: 2

  1. E. Ashby Plant and Patricia G. Devine. 1998. Inter- nal and external motivation to respond without prej- udice. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 75(3):811-832.
  2. Zichao Yang, Diyi Yang, Chris Dyer, Xiaodong He, Alexander J. Smola, and Eduard H. Hovy. 2016. Hi- erarchical attention networks for document classifi- cation. In NAACL.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sap, M., Card, D., Gabriel, S., Choi, Y., & Smith, N. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
  • Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence (US)
Corresponding author
Sap, Maarten
Venue
Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics
Published
2019
Pages
1668-1678
ISSN
0736-587X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2949678053
Cited by
817
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 59 · 2025: 96 · 2024: 86 · 2023: 139 · 2022: 142 · 2021: 178 · 2020: 105 · 2019: 12
FWCI
40.99
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Science Foundation (1714566)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Keywords
hate speech detection, racial bias, African American English, dialects, annotation bias, hate speech datasets, priming, minority groups

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