Laypeople's Attitudes Towards Fair, Affirmative, and Discriminatory Decision-Making Algorithms

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.07339v1
• Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 08:25:15 GMT
• Title: Laypeople's Attitudes Towards Fair, Affirmative, and Discriminatory Decision-Making Algorithms
• Abstract summary: We present the results of two experiments capturing laypeople's perceptions of affirmative algorithms.<n>We find that people view fair algorithms favorably and denounce discriminatory systems.<n>We identify a source of these divisions: people have varying beliefs about who (if anyone) is marginalized.
• Score: 6.974741712647656
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Affirmative algorithms have emerged as a potential answer to algorithmic discrimination, seeking to redress past harms and rectify the source of historical injustices. We present the results of two experiments ($N$$=$$1193$) capturing laypeople's perceptions of affirmative algorithms -- those which explicitly prioritize the historically marginalized -- in hiring and criminal justice. We contrast these opinions about affirmative algorithms with folk attitudes towards algorithms that prioritize the privileged (i.e., discriminatory) and systems that make decisions independently of demographic groups (i.e., fair). We find that people -- regardless of their political leaning and identity -- view fair algorithms favorably and denounce discriminatory systems. In contrast, we identify disagreements concerning affirmative algorithms: liberals and racial minorities rate affirmative systems as positively as their fair counterparts, whereas conservatives and those from the dominant racial group evaluate affirmative algorithms as negatively as discriminatory systems. We identify a source of these divisions: people have varying beliefs about who (if anyone) is marginalized, shaping their views of affirmative algorithms. We discuss the possibility of bridging these disagreements to bring people together towards affirmative algorithms.

Related papers

• Algorithmic Monocultures in Hiring [70.15400013850069]
  Many employers screen job applicants with algorithms built by the same few algorithm vendors.<n>We acquire and analyze a novel dataset of 3 million applicants submitting 4 million applications.<n>We find clear racial disparities in applicant outcomes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-26T17:59:55Z)
• Partial Identification Approach to Counterfactual Fairness Assessment [50.88100567472179]
  We introduce a Bayesian approach to bound unknown counterfactual fairness measures with high confidence.<n>Our results reveal a positive (spurious) effect on the COMPAS score when changing race to African-American (from all others) and a negative (direct causal) effect when transitioning from young to old age.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T18:35:08Z)
• Price discrimination, algorithmic decision-making, and European non-discrimination law [0.2262632497140704]
  algorithmic decision-making can have discriminatory effects.<n>Online price differentiation could lead to indirect discrimination.<n>Paper shows, however, that non-discrimination law has flaws when applied to algorithmic decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-28T12:41:48Z)
• Protected Grounds and the System of Non-Discrimination Law in the Context of Algorithmic Decision-Making and Artificial Intelligence [0.1915265522996079]
  This paper explores which system of non-discrimination law can best be applied to algorithmic decision-making.<n>The paper analyses the current loopholes in the protection offered by non-discrimination law and explores the best way for lawmakers to approach algorithmic differentiation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-01T15:21:12Z)
• Auditing for Racial Discrimination in the Delivery of Education Ads [50.37313459134418]
  We propose a new third-party auditing method that can evaluate racial bias in the delivery of ads for education opportunities. We find evidence of racial discrimination in Meta's algorithmic delivery of ads for education opportunities, posing legal and ethical concerns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-02T02:00:55Z)
• Choosing an algorithmic fairness metric for an online marketplace: Detecting and quantifying algorithmic bias on LinkedIn [0.21756081703275995]
  We derive an algorithmic fairness metric from the fairness notion of equal opportunity for equally qualified candidates. We use the proposed method to measure and quantify algorithmic bias with respect to gender of two algorithms used by LinkedIn.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-15T10:33:30Z)
• Anatomizing Bias in Facial Analysis [86.79402670904338]
  Existing facial analysis systems have been shown to yield biased results against certain demographic subgroups. It has become imperative to ensure that these systems do not discriminate based on gender, identity, or skin tone of individuals. This has led to research in the identification and mitigation of bias in AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-13T09:51:13Z)
• An Outcome Test of Discrimination for Ranked Lists [0.18416014644193063]
  We show that non-discrimination implies a system of moment inequalities. We show how to statistically test the implied inequalities, and validate our approach in an application using data from LinkedIn.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-15T16:42:57Z)
• Statistical discrimination in learning agents [64.78141757063142]
  Statistical discrimination emerges in agent policies as a function of both the bias in the training population and of agent architecture. We show that less discrimination emerges with agents that use recurrent neural networks, and when their training environment has less bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-21T18:28:57Z)
• Distributive Justice and Fairness Metrics in Automated Decision-making: How Much Overlap Is There? [0.0]
  We show that metrics implementing equality of opportunity only apply when resource allocations are based on deservingness, but fail when allocations should reflect concerns about egalitarianism, sufficiency, and priority. We argue that by cleanly distinguishing between prediction tasks and decision tasks, research on fair machine learning could take better advantage of the rich literature on distributive justice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-04T12:09:26Z)
• Selection-Expansion: A Unifying Framework for Motion-Planning and Diversity Search Algorithms [69.87173070473717]
  We investigate the properties of two diversity search algorithms, the Novelty Search and the Goal Exploration Process algorithms. The relation to MP algorithms reveals that the smoothness, or lack of smoothness of the mapping between the policy parameter space and the outcome space plays a key role in the search efficiency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-10T13:52:27Z)
• Auditing for Discrimination in Algorithms Delivering Job Ads [70.02478301291264]
  We develop a new methodology for black-box auditing of algorithms for discrimination in the delivery of job advertisements. Our first contribution is to identify the distinction between skew in ad delivery due to protected categories such as gender or race. Second, we develop an auditing methodology that distinguishes between skew explainable by differences in qualifications from other factors. Third, we apply our proposed methodology to two prominent targeted advertising platforms for job ads: Facebook and LinkedIn.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-09T17:38:36Z)
• Affirmative Algorithms: The Legal Grounds for Fairness as Awareness [0.0]
  We discuss how such approaches will likely be deemed "algorithmic affirmative action" We argue that the government-contracting cases offer an alternative grounding for algorithmic fairness. We call for more research at the intersection of algorithmic fairness and causal inference to ensure that bias mitigation is tailored to specific causes and mechanisms of bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-18T22:53:20Z)
• Intersectional Affirmative Action Policies for Top-k Candidates Selection [3.4961413413444817]
  We study the problem of selecting the top-k candidates from a pool of applicants, where each candidate is associated with a score indicating his/her aptitude. We consider a situation in which some groups of candidates experience historical and present disadvantage that makes their chances of being accepted much lower than other groups. We propose two algorithms to solve this problem, analyze them, and evaluate them experimentally using a dataset of university application scores and admissions to bachelor degrees in an OECD country.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-29T12:27:18Z)
• Bias in Multimodal AI: Testbed for Fair Automatic Recruitment [73.85525896663371]
  We study how current multimodal algorithms based on heterogeneous sources of information are affected by sensitive elements and inner biases in the data. We train automatic recruitment algorithms using a set of multimodal synthetic profiles consciously scored with gender and racial biases. Our methodology and results show how to generate fairer AI-based tools in general, and in particular fairer automated recruitment systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-15T15:58:05Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.