Algorithmic gender bias: investigating perceptions of discrimination in automated decision-making

被引:4
作者
Kim, Soojong [1 ,2 ,5 ]
Oh, Poong [3 ]
Lee, Joomi [4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif Davis, Dept Commun, Davis, CA USA
[2] Stanford Univ, Stanford Ctr Philanthropy & Civil Soc, Stanford, CA USA
[3] Nanyang Technol Univ, Wee Kim Wee Sch Commun & Informat, Singapore, Singapore
[4] Univ Georgia, Dept Advertising & Publ Relat, Athens, GA USA
[5] Univ Calif Davis, Dept Commun, 361 Kerr Hall, Davis, CA 95616 USA
关键词
Automated decision-making; artificial intelligence; gender; identity; bias; ARTIFICIAL-INTELLIGENCE; UNITED-STATES; SELF; ATTRIBUTIONS; FAIRNESS; EQUALITY; IMPACT; TRUST; MODEL;
D O I
10.1080/0144929X.2024.2306484
中图分类号
TP3 [计算技术、计算机技术];
学科分类号
0812 ;
摘要
With the widespread use of artificial intelligence and automated decision-making (ADM), concerns are increasing about automated decisions biased against certain social groups, such as women and racial minorities. The public's skepticism and the danger of algorithmic discrimination are widely acknowledged, yet the role of key factors constituting the context of discriminatory situations is underexplored. This study examined people's perceptions of gender bias in ADM, focusing on three factors influencing the responses to discriminatory automated decisions: the target of discrimination (subject vs. other), the gender identity of the subject, and situational contexts that engender biases. Based on a randomised experiment (N = 602), we found stronger negative reactions to automated decisions that discriminate against the gender group of the subject than those discriminating against other gender groups, evidenced by lower perceived fairness and trust in ADM, and greater negative emotion and tendency to question the outcome. The negative reactions were more pronounced among participants in underserved gender groups than men. Also, participants were more sensitive to biases in economic and occupational contexts than in other situations. These findings suggest that perceptions of algorithmic biases should be understood in relation to the public's lived experience of inequality and injustice in society.
引用
收藏
页码:4208 / 4221
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
[31]   Great AI divides? Automated decision-making technologies and dreams of development [J].
Sinanan, Jolynna ;
McNamara, Tom .
CONTINUUM-JOURNAL OF MEDIA & CULTURAL STUDIES, 2021, 35 (05) :747-760
[32]   Explaining Why the Computer Says No: Algorithmic Transparency Affects the Perceived Trustworthiness of Automated Decision-Making [J].
Grimmelikhuijsen, Stephan .
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW, 2023, 83 (02) :241-262
[33]   The perils and pitfalls of explainable AI: Strategies for explaining algorithmic decision-making [J].
de Bruijn, Hans ;
Warnier, Martijn ;
Janssen, Marijn .
GOVERNMENT INFORMATION QUARTERLY, 2022, 39 (02)
[34]   Fairness, accountability and transparency: notes on algorithmic decision-making in criminal justice [J].
Chiao, Vincent .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LAW IN CONTEXT, 2019, 15 (02) :126-139
[35]   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)
[36]   Statistical evidence and algorithmic decision-making [J].
Holm, Sune .
SYNTHESE, 2023, 202 (01)
[37]   AUTOMATED DECISION-MAKING SYSTEMS IN SPANISH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [J].
Gamero Casado, Eduardo .
REVISTA GENERAL DE DERECHO ADMINISTRATIVO, 2023, (63)
[38]   AUTOMATED DECISION-MAKING SYSTEMS IN AUSTRIAN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [J].
Merli, Franz .
REVISTA GENERAL DE DERECHO ADMINISTRATIVO, 2023, (63)
[39]   Statistical evidence and algorithmic decision-making [J].
Sune Holm .
Synthese, 202
[40]   Algorithmic legitimacy in clinical decision-making [J].
Sune Holm .
Ethics and Information Technology, 2023, 25