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

被引:1
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
[41]   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
[42]   Social context of the issue of discriminatory algorithmic decision-making systems [J].
Varona, Daniel ;
Suarez, Juan Luis .
AI & SOCIETY, 2024, 39 (06) :2799-2811
[43]   What influences algorithmic decision-making? A systematic literature review on algorithm aversion [J].
Mahmud, Hasan ;
Islam, A. K. M. Najmul ;
Ahmed, Syed Ishtiaque ;
Smolander, Kari .
TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE, 2022, 175
[44]   Equitable Decision-Making in Community Foundations [J].
Azevedo, Lauren ;
Bell, Andrew .
NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT & LEADERSHIP, 2025, 35 (04) :765-781
[46]   Xenophobia in Juror Decision-Making [J].
Huang, Li .
LAW & SOCIAL INQUIRY, 2025, 50 (01) :170-194
[47]   Antibiotic Decision-Making in the ICU [J].
Parra-Rodriguez, Luis ;
Guillamet, M. Cristina Vazquez .
SEMINARS IN RESPIRATORY AND CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2022, 43 (01) :141-149
[48]   Intertemporal Decision-Making for a Group [J].
Richard Yi ;
Leila F. King ;
Anne E. Carter ;
Reid D. Landes ;
Warren K. Bickel .
The Psychological Record, 2010, 60 :577-586
[49]   POLITICAL ASPECTS OF DECISION-MAKING [J].
Slobodianiuk, Anatolii ;
Vonsovych, Sergii ;
Berezovska-Chmil, Olena ;
Nykorovych, Yurii-Andrii ;
Halipchak, Volodymyr .
AD ALTA-JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH, 2023, 13 (02) :23-26
[50]   Futility and Shared Decision-Making [J].
Rubin, Michael A. ;
Riecke, Jenny ;
Heitman, Elizabeth .
NEUROLOGIC CLINICS, 2023, 41 (03) :455-467