Province of Origin, Decision-Making Bias, and Responses to Bureaucratic Versus Algorithmic Decision-Making

被引:0
作者
Wang, Ge [1 ]
Zhang, Zhejun [2 ]
Xie, Shenghua [1 ]
Guo, Yue [2 ]
机构
[1] Cent China Normal Univ, Fac Polit Sci, Sch Publ Adm, Wuhan, Peoples R China
[2] Beijing Normal Univ, Sch Govt, Beijing, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
algorithmic decision-making; bureaucratic decision-making; decision-making bias; province of origin; representative bureaucracy; REPRESENTATIVE BUREAUCRACY; ARTIFICIAL-INTELLIGENCE; STREET-LEVEL; ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION; RACE; GOVERNANCE; JUSTICE; GENDER; POLICY; REGION;
D O I
10.1111/puar.13928
中图分类号
C93 [管理学]; D035 [国家行政管理]; D523 [行政管理]; D63 [国家行政管理];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ; 1204 ; 120401 ;
摘要
As algorithmic decision-making (ADM) becomes prevalent in certain public sectors, its interaction with traditional bureaucratic decision-making (BDM) evolves, especially in contexts shaped by regional identities and decision-making biases. To explore these dynamics, we conducted two survey experiments within traffic enforcement scenarios, involving 4816 participants across multiple provinces. Results indicate that non-native residents perceived ADM as fairer and more acceptable than BDM when they did not share a province of origin with local bureaucrats. Both native and non-native residents showed a preference for ADM in the presence of bureaucratic and algorithmic biases but preferred BDM when such biases were absent. When bureaucratic and algorithmic biases coexisted, the lack of a shared province of origin further reinforced non-native residents' perception of ADM as fairer and more acceptable than BDM. Our findings reveal the complex interplay among province of origin, decision-making biases, and responses to different decision-making approaches.
引用
收藏
页数:19
相关论文
共 50 条
[31]   The Limitations of Decision-Making [J].
Walton, Paul .
INFORMATION, 2020, 11 (12) :1-22
[32]   Fairness perceptions of algorithmic decision-making: A systematic review of the empirical literature [J].
Starke, Christopher ;
Baleis, Janine ;
Keller, Birte ;
Marcinkowski, Frank .
BIG DATA & SOCIETY, 2022, 9 (02)
[33]   Algorithmic decision-making and system destructiveness: A case of automatic debt recovery [J].
Rinta-Kahila, Tapani ;
Someh, Ida ;
Gillespie, Nicole ;
Indulska, Marta ;
Gregor, Shirley .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS, 2022, 31 (03) :313-338
[34]   Social impacts of algorithmic decision-making: A research agenda for the social sciences [J].
Gerdon, Frederic ;
Bach, Ruben L. ;
Kern, Christoph ;
Kreuter, Frauke .
BIG DATA & SOCIETY, 2022, 9 (01)
[35]   Decision-Making Bias in Instance Matching Model Selection [J].
Kejriwal, Mayank ;
Miranker, Daniel P. .
SEMANTIC WEB - ISWC 2015, PT I, 2015, 9366 :392-407
[36]   Of 'black boxes' and algorithmic decision-making in (higher) education - A commentary [J].
Prinsloo, Paul .
BIG DATA & SOCIETY, 2020, 7 (01)
[37]   How to use algorithmic decision-making to promote inclusiveness in organizations [J].
David De Cremer ;
Leander De Schutter .
AI and Ethics, 2021, 1 (4) :563-567
[38]   Weapons of moral construction? On the value of fairness in algorithmic decision-making [J].
Benedetta Giovanola ;
Simona Tiribelli .
Ethics and Information Technology, 2022, 24
[39]   AUTOMATION AND ALGORITHMIC DECISION-MAKING SYSTEMS IN THE ITALIAN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION [J].
Galetta, Diana-Urania ;
Pinotti, Giulia .
REVISTA GENERAL DE DERECHO ADMINISTRATIVO, 2023, (63)
[40]   Reviewable Automated Decision-Making: A Framework for Accountable Algorithmic Systems [J].
Cobbe, Jennifer ;
Lee, Michelle Seng Ah ;
Singh, Jatinder .
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2021 ACM CONFERENCE ON FAIRNESS, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND TRANSPARENCY, FACCT 2021, 2021, :598-609