research-article

Public Access

Procedural Justice in Algorithmic Fairness: Leveraging Transparency and Outcome Control for Fair Algorithmic Mediation

Authors:

Daniel KusbitAuthors Info & Claims

Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Volume 3, Issue CSCW

Article No.: 182, Pages 1 - 26

https://doi.org/10.1145/3359284

Published: 07 November 2019 Publication History

Abstract

As algorithms increasingly take managerial and governance roles, it is ever more important to build them to be perceived as fair and adopted by people. With this goal, we propose a procedural justice framework in algorithmic decision-making drawing from procedural justice theory, which lays out elements that promote a sense of fairness among users. As a case study, we built an interface that leveraged two key elements of the framework---transparency and outcome control---and evaluated it in the context of goods division. Our interface explained the algorithm's allocative fairness properties (standards clarity) and outcomes through an input-output matrix (outcome explanation), then allowed people to interactively adjust the algorithmic allocations as a group (outcome control). The findings from our within-subjects laboratory study suggest that standards clarity alone did not increase perceived fairness; outcome explanation had mixed effects, increasing or decreasing perceived fairness and reducing algorithmic accountability; and outcome control universally improved perceived fairness by allowing people to realize the inherent limitations of decisions and redistribute the goods to better fit their contexts, and by bringing human elements into final decision-making.

References

[1]

[n.d.]. Provably Fair Solutions. http://www.spliddit.org/

[2]

[n.d.]. Stanford Participatory Budgeting Platform. https://pbstanford.org/

[3]

Ashraf Abdul, Jo Vermeulen, Danding Wang, Brian Y Lim, and Mohan Kankanhalli. 2018. Trends and trajectories for explainable, accountable and intelligible systems: An hci research agenda. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 582.

Digital Library

[4]

Saleema Amershi, Maya Cakmak, William Bradley Knox, and Todd Kulesza. 2014. Power to the people: The role of humans in interactive machine learning. AI Magazine 35, 4 (2014), 105--120.

Digital Library

[5]

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1461444816676645

[6]

Robert J Bies, Christopher L Martin, and Joel Brockner. 1993. Just laid off, but still a "good citizen?" Only if the process is fair. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 6, 3 (1993), 227--238. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01419446

[7]

Reuben Binns. 2018. Fairness in machine learning: Lessons from political philosophy. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research 81 (2018), 1--11.

[8]

Reuben Binns, Max Van Kleek, Michael Veale, Ulrik Lyngs, Jun Zhao, and Nigel Shadbolt. 2018. "It's reducing a human being to a percentage": Perceptions of justice in algorithmic decisions. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 377.

Digital Library

[9]

Steven L Blader and Tom R Tyler. 2003. A four-component model of procedural justice: Defining the meaning of a "fair" process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 29, 6 (2003), 747--758. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203029006007

[10]

Steven J Brams, Michael A Jones, Christian Klamler, et al. 2006. Better ways to cut a cake. Notices of the AMS 53, 11 (2006), 1314--1321.

[11]

Joel Brockner, Tom R Tyler, and Rochelle Cooper-Schneider. 1992. The influence of prior commitment to an institution on reactions to perceived unfairness: The higher they are, the harder they fall. Administrative Science Quarterly (1992), 241--261. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393223

[12]

Ioannis Caragiannis, David Kurokawa, Hervé Moulin, Ariel D Procaccia, Nisarg Shah, and Junxing Wang. 2016. The unreasonable fairness of maximum Nash welfare. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation. ACM, 305--322. https://doi.org/10.1145/2940716.2940726

Digital Library

[13]

W Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne. 1998. Procedural justice, strategic decision making, and the knowledge economy. Strategic management journal 19, 4 (1998), 323--338. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199804)19:4<323::AIDSMJ976> 3.0.CO;2-F

[14]

Jason A Colquitt and Jessica B Rodell. 2015. Measuring justice and fairness. Oxford handbook of justice in the workplace 187 (2015), 202.

[15]

Sam Corbett-Davies and Sharad Goel. 2018. The measure and mismeasure of fairness: A critical review of fair machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.00023 (2018).

[16]

Henriette Cramer, Vanessa Evers, Satyan Ramlal, Maarten Van Someren, Lloyd Rutledge, Natalia Stash, Lora Aroyo, and Bob Wielinga. 2008. The effects of transparency on trust in and acceptance of a content-based art recommender. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 18, 5 (2008), 455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-008--9051--3

Digital Library

[17]

Harlon Leigh Dalton. 1985. Taking the right to appeal (more or less) seriously. The Yale Law Journal 95, 1 (1985), 62--107.

[18]

Anupam Datta, Shayak Sen, and Yair Zick. 2016. Algorithmic transparency via quantitative input influence: Theory and experiments with learning systems. In 2016 IEEE symposium on security and privacy (SP). IEEE, 598--617. https: //doi.org/10.1109/SP.2016.42

[19]

Nicholas Diakopoulos and Michael Koliska. 2017. Algorithmic transparency in the news media. Digital Journalism 5, 7 (2017), 809--828. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2016.1208053

[20]

Jonathan Dodge, Q Vera Liao, Yunfeng Zhang, Rachel KE Bellamy, and Casey Dugan. 2019. Explaining models: an empirical study of how explanations impact fairness judgment. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. ACM, 275--285.

Digital Library

[21]

Chirstopher Donner, Jon Maskaly, Lorie Fridell, and Wesley G Jennings. 2015. Policing and procedural justice: a state-of-the-art review. Policing: an international journal of police strategies & management 38, 1 (2015), 153--172. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-12--2014-0129

[22]

Cynthia Dwork, Moritz Hardt, Toniann Pitassi, Omer Reingold, and Richard Zemel. 2012. Fairness through awareness. In Proceedings of the 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS). ACM, 214--226.

Digital Library

[23]

FAT*. [n.d.]. ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency.

[24]

Robert Folger. 1977. Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of voice and improvement on experienced inequity. Journal of personality and social psychology 35, 2 (1977), 108. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022--3514.35.2.108

[25]

Robert Folger and Mary A Konovsky. 1989. Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management journal 32, 1 (1989), 115--130. https://doi.org/10.2307/256422

[26]

Bryce Goodman and Seth Flaxman. 2016. EU regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a right to explanation. In ICML workshop on human interpretability in machine learning (WHI 2016), New York, NY. http://arxiv. org/abs/1606.08813 v1.

[27]

Jerald Greenberg. 1990. Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of applied psychology 75, 5 (1990), 561. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021--9010.75.5.561

[28]

Jerald Greenberg and R Cropanzano. 1993. The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (1993).

[29]

Nina Grgic-Hlaca, Elissa M Redmiles, Krishna P Gummadi, and Adrian Weller. 2018. Human perceptions of fairness in algorithmic decision making: A case study of criminal risk prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.09548 (2018).

[30]

Nina Grgic-Hlaca, Muhammad Bilal Zafar, Krishna P Gummadi, and Adrian Weller. 2016. The case for process fairness in learning: Feature selection for fair decision making. In NIPS Symposium on Machine Learning and the Law, Vol. 1. 2.

[31]

Aniko Hannak, Gary Soeller, David Lazer, Alan Mislove, and Christo Wilson. 2014. Measuring price discrimination and steering on e-commerce web sites. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on internet measurement conference. ACM, 305--318. https://doi.org/10.1145/2663716.2663744

Digital Library

[32]

F Maxwell Harper, Funing Xu, Harmanpreet Kaur, Kyle Condiff, Shuo Chang, and Loren Terveen. 2015. Putting users in control of their recommendations. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. ACM, 3--10. https://doi.org/10.1145/2792838.2800179

Digital Library

[33]

Jonathan L Herlocker, Joseph A Konstan, and John Riedl. 2000. Explaining collaborative filtering recommendations. In Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM, 241--250.

Digital Library

[34]

Tad Hirsch, Kritzia Merced, Shrikanth Narayanan, Zac E Imel, and David C Atkins. 2017. Designing contestability: Interaction design, machine learning, and mental health. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. ACM, 95--99. https://doi.org/10.1145/3064663.3064703

Digital Library

[35]

Pauline Houlden, Stephen LaTour, Laurens Walker, and John Thibaut. 1978. Preference for modes of dispute resolution as a function of process and decision control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 14, 1 (1978), 13--30. https: //doi.org/10.1016/0022--1031(78)90057--4

[36]

Farnaz Jahanbakhsh,Wai-Tat Fu, Karrie Karahalios, Darko Marinov, and Brian Bailey. 2017. YouWant Me toWork with Who?: Stakeholder Perceptions of Automated Team Formation in Project-based Courses. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 3201--3212. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3026011

Digital Library

[37]

Judy Kay and Bob Kummerfeld. 2012. Creating personalized systems that people can scrutinize and control: Drivers, principles and experience. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS) 2, 4 (2012), 24. https://doi.org/10. 1145/2395123.2395129

[38]

Uzma Khan and Ravi Dhar. 2007. Where there is a way, is there a will? The effect of future choices on self-control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 136, 2 (2007), 277. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096--3445.136.2.277

[39]

René F Kizilcec. 2016. How much information?: Effects of transparency on trust in an algorithmic interface. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2390--2395. https://doi.org/10. 1145/2858036.2858402

Digital Library

[40]

Flip Klijn. 2000. An algorithm for envy-free allocations in an economy with indivisible objects and money. Social Choice and Welfare 17, 2 (2000), 201--215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003550050015

[41]

Todd Kulesza, Simone Stumpf, Margaret Burnett, Sherry Yang, Irwin Kwan, andWeng-KeenWong. 2013. Too much, too little, or just right? Ways explanations impact end users' mental models. In 2013 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human Centric Computing. IEEE, 3--10. https://doi.org/10.1109/VLHCC.2013.6645235

[42]

Min Kyung Lee. 2018. Understanding perception of algorithmic decisions: Fairness, trust, and emotion in response to algorithmic management. Big Data & Society 5, 1 (2018), 1--16. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951718756684

[43]

Min Kyung Lee and Su Baykal. 2017. Algorithmic mediation in group decisions: Fairness perceptions of algorithmically mediated vs. discussion-based social division. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. ACM, 1035--1048.

Digital Library

[44]

Min Kyung Lee, Ji Tae Kim, and Leah Lizarondo. 2017. A human-centered approach to algorithmic services: Considerations for fair and motivating smart community service management that allocates donations to non-profit organizations. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 3365--3376.

Digital Library

[45]

Min Kyung Lee, Daniel Kusbit, Anson Kahng, Ji Tae Kim, Xinran Yuan, Allissa Chan, Daniel See, Ritesh Noothigattu, Siheon Lee, Alexandros Psomas, and Ariel Procaccia. 2019. WeBuildAI: Participatory framework for algorithmic governance. Proceedings of the ACM : Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), Article 181, 35 pages.

[46]

Min Kyung Lee, Daniel Kusbit, Evan Metsky, and Laura Dabbish. 2015. Working with machines: The impact of algorithmic and data-driven management on human workers. In Proceedings of the 2015 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1603--1612. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702548

Digital Library

[47]

Gerald S Leventhal. 1980. What should be done with equity theory? In Social exchange. Springer, 27--55. https: //doi.org/10.1007/978--1--4613--3087--5_2

[48]

Brian Y Lim, Anind K Dey, and Daniel Avrahami. 2009. Why and why not explanations improve the intelligibility of context-aware intelligent systems. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2119--2128.

Digital Library

[49]

E Allan Lind, Ruth Kanfer, and P Christopher Earley. 1990. Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. Journal of Personality and Social psychology 59, 5 (1990), 952. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022--3514.59.5.952

[50]

E Allan Lind, Carol T Kulik, Maureen Ambrose, and Maria V de Vera Park. 1993. Individual and corporate dispute resolution: Using procedural fairness as a decision heuristic. Administrative Science Quarterly (1993), 224--251. https: //doi.org/10.2307/2393412

[51]

E Allan Lind, Robin I Lissak, and Donald E Conlon. 1983. Decision Control and Process Control Effects on Procedural Fairness Judgments 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 13, 4 (1983), 338--350. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559- 1816.1983.tb01744.x

[52]

E Allan Lind and Tom R Tyler. 1988. The social psychology of procedural justice. Springer Science & Business Media.

[53]

E Allan Lind, Tom R Tyler, and Yuen J Huo. 1997. Procedural context and culture: Variation in the antecedents of procedural justice judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73, 4 (1997), 767. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022- 3514.73.4.767

[54]

John Stuart Mill. 2016. Utilitarianism. In Seven masterpieces of philosophy. Routledge, 337--383.

[55]

Charles E Miller, Patricia Jackson, Jonathan Mueller, and Cynthia Schersching. 1987. Some social psychological effects of group decision rules. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52, 2 (1987), 325. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022- 3514.52.2.325

[56]

Brian P Niehoff and Robert H Moorman. 1993. Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management journal 36, 3 (1993), 527--556. https://doi.org/10. 2307/256591

[57]

Denis Parra and Peter Brusilovsky. 2015. User-controllable personalization: A case study with SetFusion. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 78 (2015), 43--67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2015.01.007

Digital Library

[58]

Richard Arthur Posthuma. 1999. The effect of context on the multiple dimensions of procedural justice. (1999).

[59]

Ariel D Procaccia and Junxing Wang. 2014. Fair enough: Guaranteeing approximate maximin shares. In Proceedings of the fifteenth ACM conference on Economics and computation. ACM, 675--692. https://doi.org/10.1145/2600057.2602835

Digital Library

[60]

Dean G Pruitt, Robert S Peirce, Neil B McGillicuddy, Gary L Welton, and Lynn M Castrianno. 1993. Long-term success in mediation. Law and Human Behavior 17, 3 (1993), 313--330. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044511

[61]

Emilee Rader, Kelley Cotter, and Janghee Cho. 2018. Explanations as mechanisms for supporting algorithmic transparency. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 103.

Digital Library

[62]

John Rawls. 2009. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.

[63]

Daniel Read and George Loewenstein. 1995. Diversification bias: Explaining the discrepancy in variety seeking between combined and separated choices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 1, 1 (1995), 34. https: //doi.org/10.1037/1076--898X.1.1.34

[64]

John E Roemer. 1998. Theories of distributive justice. Harvard University Press.

[65]

Maurice Salles. 2017. Felix Brandt, Vincent Conitzer, Ulle Endriss, Jerôme Lang, and Ariel Procaccia (eds), Handbook of Computational Social Choice. OEconomia. History, Methodology, Philosophy 7--4 (2017), 609--618. https://doi.org/10. 1017/CBO9781107446984

[66]

Nripsuta Ani Saxena, Karen Huang, Evan DeFilippis, Goran Radanovic, David C Parkes, and Yang Liu. 2019. How Do Fairness Definitions Fare?: Examining Public Attitudes Towards Algorithmic Definitions of Fairness. In Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. ACM, 99--106.

Digital Library

[67]

John Schaubroeck, Douglas R May, and F William Brown. 1994. Procedural justice explanations and employee reactions to economic hardship: A field experiment. Journal of applied psychology 79, 3 (1994), 455. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021- 9010.79.3.455

[68]

Shlomi Segall. 2012. What's so Bad about Discrimination? Utilitas 24, 1 (2012), 82--100. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0953820811000379

[69]

Amartya Sen. 2017. Collective Choice and Social Welfare: Expanded edition. Penguin UK.

[70]

Ming Singer. 1990. Determinants of perceived fairness in selection practices: An organizational justice perspective. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs (1990).

[71]

Latanya Sweeney. 2013. Discrimination in online ad delivery. arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.6822 (2013). https://doi.org/10. 1145/2460276.2460278

[72]

M Susan Taylor, Kay B Tracy, Monika K Renard, J Kline Harrison, and Stephen J Carroll. 1995. Due process in performance appraisal: A quasi-experiment in procedural justice. Administrative science quarterly (1995), 495--523. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393795

[73]

John W Thibaut and Laurens Walker. 1975. Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. L. Erlbaum Associates.

[74]

Huey-Ru Debbie Tsai, Yasser Shoukry, Min Kyung Lee, and Vasumathi Raman. 2017. Towards a socially responsible smart city: dynamic resource allocation for smarter community service. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM International Conference on Systems for Energy-Efficient Built Environments. ACM, Article 13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3137133.3137163

Digital Library

[75]

Aki Tsuchiya, Luis Silva Miguel, Richard Edlin, Allan Wailoo, and Paul Dolan. 2005. Procedural justice in public healthcare resource allocation. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 4, 2 (2005), 119--127. https://doi.org/10. 2165/00148365--200504020-00006

[76]

Tom Tyler, Peter Degoey, and Heather Smith. 1996. Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters: A test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model. Journal of personality and social psychology 70, 5 (1996), 913. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022--3514.70.5.913

[77]

Tom R Tyler. 1989. The psychology of procedural justice: a test of the group-value model. Journal of personality and social psychology 57, 5 (1989), 830. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022--3514.57.5.830

[78]

Tom R Tyler. 1998. Trust and democratic governance. Trust and governance 1 (1998), 269.

[79]

Tom R Tyler and Andrew Caine. 1981. The influence of outcomes and procedures on satisfaction with formal leaders. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 41, 4 (1981), 642. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022--3514.41.4.642

[80]

Umair Ul Hassan, Sean O'Riain, and Edward Curry. 2013. Effects of expertise assessment on the quality of task routing in human computation. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Social Media for Crowdsourcing and Human Computation., Paris, France. https://doi.org/10.14236/ewic/sohuman2013.1

[81]

Rajan Vaish, Snehalkumar Neil S Gaikwad, Geza Kovacs, Andreas Veit, Ranjay Krishna, Imanol Arrieta Ibarra, Camelia Simoiu, Michael Wilber, Serge Belongie, Sharad Goel, et al. 2017. Crowd research: Open and scalable university laboratories. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. ACM, 829--843. https://doi.org/10.1145/3126594.3126648

Digital Library

[82]

Kees Van den Bos, E Allan Lind, Riël Vermunt, and Henk AM Wilke. 1997. How do I judge my outcome when I do not know the outcome of others? The psychology of the fair process effect. Journal of personality and social psychology 72, 5 (1997), 1034. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022--3514.72.5.1034

[83]

Michael Veale, Max Van Kleek, and Reuben Binns. 2018. Fairness and Accountability Design Needs for Algorithmic Support in High-Stakes Public Sector Decision-Making. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 440.

Digital Library

[84]

Laurens Walker, Stephen LaTour, E Allan Lind, and John Thibaut. 1974. Reactions of Participants and Observers to Modes of Adjudication 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 4, 4 (1974), 295--310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559- 1816.1974.tb02601.x

[85]

Weiquan Wang and Izak Benbasat. 2007. Recommendation agents for electronic commerce: Effects of explanation facilities on trusting beliefs. Journal of Management Information Systems 23, 4 (2007), 217--246. https://doi.org/10.2753/ MIS0742--1222230410

Digital Library

[86]

Allison Woodruff, Sarah E Fox, Steven Rousso-Schindler, and Jeffrey Warshaw. 2018. A qualitative exploration of perceptions of algorithmic fairness. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 656.

Digital Library

[87]

Zhilin Zheng, Tim Vogelsang, and Niels Pinkwart. 2015. The impact of small learning group composition on student engagement and success in a MOOC. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of Educational Data Mining. 500--503.

Cited By

Henning ALangenbach P(2024)Bridging the Human-Automation Fairness Gap: How Providing Reasons Enhances the Perceived Fairness of Public Decision-MakingSSRN Electronic Journal10.2139/ssrn.4819145Online publication date: 2024
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4819145
Fine ALe SMiller M(2024)Content Analysis of Judges’ Sentiments Toward Artificial Intelligence Risk Assessment ToolsRussian Journal of Economics and Law10.21202/2782-2923.2024.1.246-26318:1(246-263)Online publication date: 19-Mar-2024
https://doi.org/10.21202/2782-2923.2024.1.246-263
Hoeppner SSamek M(2024)Procedural Fairness as Stepping Stone for Successful Implementation of Algorithmic Decision-Making in Public Administration: Review and OutlookAUC IURIDICA10.14712/23366478.2024.2470:2(85-99)Online publication date: 23-May-2024
https://doi.org/10.14712/23366478.2024.24
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Procedural Justice in Algorithmic Fairness: Leveraging Transparency and Outcome Control for Fair Algorithmic Mediation
1. Human-centered computing

Recommendations

Fairness of Scoring in Online Job Marketplaces
Special Issue on Retrieving and Learning from IoT Data and Regular Papers

We study fairness of scoring in online job marketplaces. We focus on group fairness and aim to algorithmically explore how a scoring function, through which individuals are ranked for jobs, treats different demographic groups. Previous work on group-...
Perceived Algorithmic Fairness using Organizational Justice Theory: An Empirical Case Study on Algorithmic Hiring
AIES '23: Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society

Growing concerns about the fairness of algorithmic decision-making systems have prompted a proliferation of mathematical formulations aimed at remedying algorithmic bias. Yet, integrating mathematical fairness alone into algorithms is insufficient to ...
Explanations as Mechanisms for Supporting Algorithmic Transparency
CHI '18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Transparency can empower users to make informed choices about how they use an algorithmic decision-making system and judge its potential consequences. However, transparency is often conceptualized by the outcomes it is intended to bring about, not the ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction

Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction Volume 3, Issue CSCW

November 2019

5026 pages

EISSN:2573-0142

DOI:10.1145/3371885

Editors:
Airi Lampinen
Stockholm University, Sweden
,
Darren Gergle
Northwestern University, USA
,
David A. Shamma
FXPAL, USA

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2019 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 07 November 2019

Published in PACMHCI Volume 3, Issue CSCW

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Funding Sources

National Science Foundation
Uptake and CMU Machine Learning for Social Good Grant

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

127
Total Citations
View Citations
5,264
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)1,407
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)199

Reflects downloads up to 10 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Henning ALangenbach P(2024)Bridging the Human-Automation Fairness Gap: How Providing Reasons Enhances the Perceived Fairness of Public Decision-MakingSSRN Electronic Journal10.2139/ssrn.4819145Online publication date: 2024
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4819145
Fine ALe SMiller M(2024)Content Analysis of Judges’ Sentiments Toward Artificial Intelligence Risk Assessment ToolsRussian Journal of Economics and Law10.21202/2782-2923.2024.1.246-26318:1(246-263)Online publication date: 19-Mar-2024
https://doi.org/10.21202/2782-2923.2024.1.246-263
Hoeppner SSamek M(2024)Procedural Fairness as Stepping Stone for Successful Implementation of Algorithmic Decision-Making in Public Administration: Review and OutlookAUC IURIDICA10.14712/23366478.2024.2470:2(85-99)Online publication date: 23-May-2024
https://doi.org/10.14712/23366478.2024.24
Weith H(2024)Faire KI-basierte SprachassistentenFair KI-based Voice AssistantsHMD Praxis der Wirtschaftsinformatik10.1365/s40702-024-01047-661:2(537-554)Online publication date: 26-Feb-2024
https://doi.org/10.1365/s40702-024-01047-6
Liao GWang FZhu WZhang Q(2024)Negative performance feedback from algorithms or humans? effect of medical researchers’ algorithm aversion on scientific misconductBMC Medical Ethics10.1186/s12910-024-01121-025:1Online publication date: 23-Oct-2024
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01121-0
Blaurock MBüttgen MSchepers J(2024)Designing Collaborative Intelligence Systems for Employee-AI Service Co-ProductionJournal of Service Research10.1177/10946705241238751Online publication date: 18-Mar-2024
https://doi.org/10.1177/10946705241238751
Nguyen TAlam SHu CAlbiston CSalehi N(2024)Definitions of Fairness Differ Across Socioeconomic Groups & Shape Perceptions of Algorithmic DecisionsProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36870588:CSCW2(1-31)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3687058
Grgić-Hlača NAli JGummadi KWortman Vaughan J(2024)(De)Noise: Moderating the Inconsistency Between Human Decision-MakersProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36869878:CSCW2(1-38)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3686987
Duan WMcNeese NFreeman GLi L(2024)Mitigating Gender Stereotypes Toward AI Agents Through an eXplainable AI (XAI) ApproachProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36869698:CSCW2(1-35)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3686969
Figueras CRossitto CCerratto Pargman T(2024)Doing Responsibilities with Automated Grading Systems: An Empirical Multi-Stakeholder ExplorationProceedings of the 13th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/3679318.3685334(1-13)Online publication date: 13-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3679318.3685334
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Article

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents