Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 123 references

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

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Affirmative algorithms divide laypeople along political and racial lines, and the split tracks beliefs about who is marginalized.

desk verdict The moderation results by ideology and race are credible and worth attention, but the abstract's causal 'source' claim about marginalization beliefs is not supported by the reported analyses. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07339 v1 pith:BNKDSQWR submitted 2025-05-12 cs.CY cs.AIcs.HC

Gabriel Lima , Nina Grgić-Hlača , Markus Langer , Yixin Zou This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYcs.AIcs.HC
keywords affirmativealgorithmsalgorithmicfairnessdiscriminationsystemicinjusticepoliticalideologyracialidentityhiringdecisionsbail
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper reports two experiments (N=1193) on how ordinary Americans judge three kinds of decision-making algorithms in hiring and bail decisions: fair ones that treat all demographic groups equally, affirmative ones that explicitly prioritize historically marginalized groups, and discriminatory ones that favor the historically privileged. The central finding is that fair algorithms are broadly approved and discriminatory ones broadly rejected by everyone, regardless of political leaning, race, or gender. Affirmative algorithms, however, split opinion: liberals and racial minorities rate them about as favorably as fair algorithms, while conservatives and the dominant racial group rate them about as negatively as discriminatory ones. The paper proposes that these divisions trace to differing beliefs about who, if anyone, is marginalized, and finds that people who name more marginalized groups are more supportive of affirmative algorithms.

What carries the argument

The central object is the algorithmic vignette: three between-participants algorithm types (affirmative, fair, discriminatory) defined solely by which demographic group the algorithm is said to prioritize, plus a control with no outcome information, embedded in identical hiring and bail decision scenarios. The explanatory mechanism is participants' open-ended reports of which groups they consider historically marginalized, coded into categories such as racial minorities, women/men, low-income groups, and LGBTQ+ individuals. These reports are used to show that beliefs about marginalization track the same political and identity lines as evaluations of affirmative algorithms, and the authors interpret the pattern through the moral-judgment lens that disagreement arises from differing beliefs about who is a vulnerable victim.

What would settle it

An experiment that measures or experimentally manipulates beliefs about marginalization before participants rate an affirmative algorithm would settle the causal claim: if shifting these beliefs changes support for affirmative algorithms in the predicted direction, the paper's 'source' account is supported, whereas if pre-existing attitudes toward affirmative algorithms are unchanged by new evidence about marginalization, the source claim is undermined.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's core claim is that laypeople do not disagree about algorithmic fairness as such—they agree that equal treatment is fair and that favoring the privileged is unfair—but they disagree sharply about whether favoring the marginalized is fair. In the hiring domain, liberal participants evaluated affirmative algorithms as positively as fair algorithms, while conservative participants judged them as unfair as discriminatory algorithms; in the bail domain, non-White participants supported affirmative algorithms as much as fair ones, while White participants rejected them. The paper identifies the source of these divisions in participants' beliefs about marginalization: the more groups a person names as historically marginalized, the more they support algorithms that prioritize the marginalized, and these belief differences align with the same political and racial lines as the attitude differences. An additional finding is that explicitly telling participants that the decision-making domain is systemically unjust had no effect on their evaluations of any algorithm type.

Load-bearing premise

The study assumes that participants' open-ended statements about which groups are marginalized, collected after they had already rated the algorithms, capture the beliefs that caused those ratings rather than reasons they made up afterwards.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fair algorithms that disregard demographic groups enjoy near-universal support across political, racial, and gender lines.
  • Support for affirmative algorithms is not fixed: it depends on the domain (politics mattered in hiring, race in bail) and on who is doing the judging.
  • Providing information that a domain is systemically unjust does not move opinions about any algorithm type, including affirmative ones.
  • A person's list of which groups count as historically marginalized is a robust correlate of their acceptance of affirmative algorithms.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The causal direction behind the 'source' claim is not established: beliefs about marginalization were measured only after participants had already rated the algorithms, so it is possible that the ratings shaped the reported beliefs rather than the reverse; a preregistered study that measures or primes marginalization beliefs before algorithm evaluation would settle this.
  • Because impersonal factual framing failed to move attitudes, the paper's own suggestion that personal experiences of discrimination might bridge the divide is the natural next test, and if personal narratives shift only some groups' views, the feasibility of 'affirmative algorithmic futures' may depend on targeted rather than universal messaging.
  • The authors note that hiring is competitive while bail is not; a direct test could swap the domains' salient identity axes (for instance, a gender-salient hiring context) to see whether the same belief-attitude link moves to gender.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports two between-participants vignette experiments (N = 1193, US Prolific sample) on laypeople's perceptions of fair, affirmative, discriminatory, and control algorithms in hiring and bail decisions. It finds that fair algorithms are rated positively and discriminatory algorithms negatively across political and identity groups. It reports moderation of affirmative-algorithm judgments by political leaning in hiring and by racial group in bail. It also reports null effects of context manipulations that reveal historical injustice, and it analyzes open-ended reports of which groups are considered marginalized. The paper claims that variation in beliefs about who is marginalized explains the observed disagreements about affirmative algorithms.

Significance. If the main results hold, the paper makes a useful empirical contribution to algorithmic fairness and HCI by documenting broad consensus on fair and discriminatory algorithms and by identifying political and racial cleavages in support for affirmative algorithms. Strengths include full ANOVA/ANCOVA tables with Bonferroni-corrected pairwise comparisons, a power analysis, and publicly available data and scripts. The specific 'source' claim about marginalization beliefs requires additional evidence; with that caveat, the study is informative for designers and policymakers working on affirmative algorithmic systems.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; §5.3; §3.2.3; Appendix C] The abstract's statement that 'people have varying beliefs about who (if anyone) is marginalized, shaping their views of affirmative algorithms' and the corresponding discussion in §5.3 are not supported by the reported design and analyses. Beliefs about marginalization were elicited after participants had rated the algorithms (§3.2.3), so the data cannot distinguish antecedent beliefs from post-hoc rationalization. The open-ended responses were coded by the first author alone with no reliability check (§3.3), and the logistic regressions in Tables 22-23 model whether a group is mentioned as predicted by political leaning, race, and gender, not algorithm ratings. No analysis links the coded beliefs to fairness, trust, objectivity, or support. The authors should either add analyses that relate beliefs to algorithm judgments (e.g., include the coded groups as predictors or mediators) or reframe the claim as exploratory rather than identifying a causal 'source.'
  2. [§4.2.1; §4.2.2; Tables 4, 12, 14] The claims that conservatives evaluate affirmative algorithms 'as negatively as discriminatory systems' (abstract) and that White participants 'evaluate affirmative algorithms as negatively as discriminatory algorithms' (§4.2.2) are not directly established by the reported statistics. Table 4 reports contrasts between slopes across algorithm type conditions, not simple-slope tests at the conservative end of the scale; a significant slope interaction does not imply equality of predicted values at a given political leaning. Similarly, Table 14 shows Non-White vs. White differences within the affirmative condition, but does not report a within-White contrast between affirmative and discriminatory conditions. Report simple slopes or estimated marginal means at relevant values (e.g., political leaning = -2 and the White subgroup) with Bonferroni correction, or soften the equivalence wording.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix C, Table 23] Table 23 appears to contain a duplicated 'Observations' row, showing both 582 and 588 observations; please correct this typo.
  2. [Figures 2-4] The figure captions state that standard errors are included but not visible due to their small values; consider plotting confidence intervals or numerical annotations so the uncertainty is interpretable.
  3. [§4.2.1, bail decisions] The statement that 'the more liberal a participant was, the more critical they were about discriminatory algorithms concerning all measures' is not backed by a table of per-condition slopes; report these slopes and their confidence intervals.
  4. [§3.3 and Appendix C] The coding of open-ended responses would benefit from an inter-coder reliability statistic on a subset of responses, especially because the categories (e.g., 'cisgender groups') are not self-evident.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is a self-contained empirical study; the under-supported causal 'source' claim is a validity limitation, not a derivation-by-construction.

full rationale

This paper does not present a derivation chain, fitted model, or uniqueness argument; it reports two preregistered-style vignette experiments with ANOVA and logistic-regression analyses. The central claims about fair, affirmative, and discriminatory algorithms are estimated directly from participant ratings, not from any equation that folds the conclusions back into the inputs. The only causal-sounding assertion, that varying beliefs about who is marginalized 'shape' views of affirmative algorithms, is not statistically established—beliefs were measured after algorithm ratings and were never regressed on algorithm judgments—but this is an internal-validity and interpretive weakness, not circularity. There is no fitted parameter later relabeled as a prediction, no group defined in terms of the outcome, and no self-citation invoked as the proof of a load-bearing premise. The authors cite prior work by overlapping authors (Grgić-Hlača et al. 2022; Langer et al. 2021) only for contrast or background context, not to justify the empirical results. The moral judgment framework of Gray and Pratt is explicitly used 'as a lens to interpret our findings,' not as an input that guarantees those findings. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited with a quote-and-reduction, and the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is an empirical vignette study with no formal derivation or fitted model parameters. The central claims rest on the listed domain assumptions about self-report validity, vignette interpretation, single-coder coding reliability, and the causal ordering of the belief measure relative to algorithm judgments.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Self-reported political leaning, race, and gender are valid and stable measures of those identities in this sample.
    The analyses treat these self-reports as reliable predictors of algorithm judgments without validating against behavioral measures.
  • domain assumption Participants interpreted the vignette descriptions of 'historically marginalized' and 'historically privileged' in the way the researchers intended, despite the vignettes deliberately not naming specific groups.
    The open-ended answers show participants named different groups, so their interpretations differ; the study does not check whether these different interpretations align with the researchers' intended referents.
  • domain assumption The single-author coding of open-ended responses is reliable despite no inter-rater reliability check.
    Only the first author manually coded the open-ended responses (Section 3.3), and no kappa or second coder is reported.
  • domain assumption The survey measures of fairness, trust, objectivity, and support capture genuine attitudes rather than social desirability or demand effects.
    The authors discuss social desirability as a limitation (Section 5.5) but do not test its influence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Laypeople's Attitudes Towards Fair, Affirmative, and Discriminatory Decision-Making Algorithms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BNKDSQWR

@misc{pith2026250507339,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Laypeople's Attitudes Towards Fair, Affirmative, and Discriminatory Decision-Making Algorithms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BNKDSQWR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07339}
}
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.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.07339 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. High-level overview of our methodology. Our vignette and manipulations are presented in Appendix [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Participants’ mean judgments of fairness, trust, objectivity, support concerning different types of algorithms deployed to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Participants’ judgments of fairness, trust, objectivity, support concerning different types of algorithms depending on par [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Participants’ mean judgments of fairness, trust, objectivity, support concerning different types of algorithms depending [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Participants’ mean judgments of fairness, trust, objectivity, support concerning different types of algorithms depending on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

123 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Christopher L Aberson and Sarah C Haag. 2003. Beliefs about affirmative action and diversity and their relationship to support for hiring policies. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 3, 1 (2003), 121–138

    2003

  2. [2]

    Rhonda YW Allen. 2003. Examining the implementation of affirmative action in law enforcement. Public Personnel Management 32, 3 (2003), 411–418

    2003

  3. [3]

    Elizabeth Anderson. 2010. The imperative of integration. In The imperative of integration . Princeton University Press

    2010

  4. [4]

    Julia Angwin, Madeleine Varner, and Ariana Tobin. 2016. Machine Bias: There’s Software Used Across the Country to Predict Future Criminals. And it’s Biased Against Blacks. ProPublica. https://tinyurl.com/5t3apr69

    2016

  5. [5]

    Edmond Awad, Sohan Dsouza, Jean-François Bonnefon, Azim Shariff, and Iyad Rahwan. 2020. Crowdsourcing moral machines. Commun. ACM 63, 3 (2020), 48–55

    2020

  6. [6]

    Solon Barocas and Andrew D Selbst. 2016. Big data’s disparate impact. Calif. L. Rev. 104 (2016), 671

    2016

  7. [7]

    Reuben Binns, Jeremias Adams-Prassl, and Aislinn Kelly-Lyth. 2023. Legal taxonomies of machine bias: Revisiting direct discrimination. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency . 1850–1858

    2023

  8. [8]

    Abeba Birhane. 2021. Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach. Patterns 2, 2 (2021)

    2021

Show all 123 references
  1. [9]

    Brown, Johnathan Flowers, Anthony Ventresque, and Christopher L

    Abeba Birhane, Elayne Ruane, Thomas Laurent, Matthew S. Brown, Johnathan Flowers, Anthony Ventresque, and Christopher L. Dancy. 2022. The forgotten margins of AI ethics. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency . 948–958

    2022

  2. [10]

    Miranda Bogen. 2019. All the Ways Hiring Algorithms Can Introduce Bias. Harvard Business Review. https://tinyurl.com/4rew6v6d

    2019

  3. [11]

    Nyla R Branscombe, Michael T Schmitt, and Kristin Schiffhauer. 2007. Racial attitudes in response to thoughts of White privilege. European Journal of Social Psychology 37, 2 (2007), 203–215

    2007

  4. [12]

    Bennett Callaghan, Leilah Harouni, Cydney H Dupree, Michael W Kraus, and Jennifer A Richeson. 2021. Testing the efficacy of three informational interventions for reducing misperceptions of the Black–White wealth gap. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, 38 (202...

    2021

  5. [13]

    Logan S Casey, Jesse Chandler, Adam Seth Levine, Andrew Proctor, and Dara Z Strolovitch. 2017. Intertemporal differences among MTurk workers: Time-based sample variations and implications for online data collection. Sage Open 7, 2 (2017), 2158244017712774

    2017

  6. [14]

    Hao-Fei Cheng, Logan Stapleton, Ruiqi Wang, Paige Bullock, Alexandra Chouldechova, Zhiwei Steven Steven Wu, and Haiyi Zhu. 2021. Soliciting stakeholders’ fairness notions in child maltreatment predictive systems. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Co...

    2021

  7. [15]

    Alexandra Chouldechova, Diana Benavides-Prado, Oleksandr Fialko, and Rhema Vaithianathan. 2018. A case study of algorithm-assisted decision making in child maltreatment hotline screening decisions. In Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency . PMLR, 134–148

    2018

  8. [16]

    Rosalee A Clawson and Eric N Waltenburg. 2003. Support for a Supreme Court affirmative action decision: a story in black and white. American Politics Research 31, 3 (2003), 251–279

    2003

  9. [17]

    Jason A Colquitt. 2001. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. Journal of applied psychology 86, 3 (2001), 386

    2001

  10. [18]

    Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw. 2013. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. In The public nature of private violence . Routledge, 93–118

    2013

  11. [19]

    Faye J Crosby, Aarti Iyer, and Sirinda Sincharoen. 2006. Understanding affirmative action. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 57, 1 (2006), 585–611

    2006

  12. [20]

    Jeffrey Dastin. 2018. Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women. Reuters. https://tinyurl.com/y64598bh

    2018

  13. [21]

    Jenny L Davis, Apryl Williams, and Michael W Yang. 2021. Algorithmic reparation. Big Data & Society 8, 2 (2021), 20539517211044808

    2021

  14. [22]

    Kari Edwards and Edward E Smith. 1996. A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. Journal of personality and social psychology 71, 1 (1996), 5

    1996

  15. [23]

    Albert H Fang and Steven White. 2022. Historical information and beliefs about racial inequality. Politics, Groups, and Identities (2022), 1–22. 16 Lima et al

    2022

  16. [24]

    Franz Faul, Edgar Erdfelder, Axel Buchner, and Albert-Georg Lang. 2009. Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior research methods 41, 4 (2009), 1149–1160

    2009

  17. [25]

    Sina Fazelpour and Zachary C Lipton. 2020. Algorithmic fairness from a non-ideal perspective. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. 57–63

    2020

  18. [26]

    Sina Fazelpour, Zachary C Lipton, and David Danks. 2022. Algorithmic fairness and the situated dynamics of justice. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 52, 1 (2022), 44–60

    2022

  19. [27]

    Leon Festinger. 1962. A theory of cognitive dissonance . Vol. 2. Stanford university press

    1962

  20. [28]

    Rachel M Gisselquist, Simone Schotte, and Min J Kim. 2023. Affirmative action around the world: insights from a new dataset . Number 2023/59. WIDER Working Paper

    2023

  21. [29]

    Heather Golden, Steve Hinkle, and Faye Crosby. 2001. Reactions to affirmative action: Substance and semantics.Journal of Applied Social Psychology 31, 1 (2001), 73–88

    2001

  22. [30]

    Pat Antonio Goldsmith. 2004. Schools’ racial mix, students’ optimism, and the Black-White and Latino-White achievement gaps. Sociology of education 77, 2 (2004), 121–147

    2004

  23. [31]

    Kurt Gray and Samuel Pratt. 2025. Morality in Our Mind and Across Cultures and Politics. Annual Review of Psychology 76 (2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    Ben Green. 2022. Escaping the impossibility of fairness: From formal to substantive algorithmic fairness. Philosophy & Technology 35, 4 (2022), 90

    2022

  25. [33]

    Ben Green and Salomé Viljoen. 2020. Algorithmic realism: expanding the boundaries of algorithmic thought. In Proceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency . 19–31

    2020

  26. [34]

    Nina Grgić-Hlača, Gabriel Lima, Adrian Weller, and Elissa M Redmiles. 2022. Dimensions of diversity in human perceptions of algorithmic fairness. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization . 1–12

    2022

  27. [35]

    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. In proc. of the Web conference. 903–912

    2018

  28. [36]

    Nina Grgić-Hlača, Muhammad Bilal Zafar, Krishna P Gummadi, and Adrian Weller. 2018. Beyond Distributive Fairness in Algorithmic Decision Making: Feature Selection for Procedurally Fair Learning. In AAAI

    2018

  29. [37]

    Pamela Grimm. 2010. Social desirability bias. Wiley international encyclopedia of marketing (2010)

    2010

  30. [38]

    Alex Hanna, Emily Denton, Andrew Smart, and Jamila Smith-Loud. 2020. Towards a critical race methodology in algorithmic fairness. InProceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency . 501–512

    2020

  31. [39]

    Jacqueline Hannan, Huei-Yen Winnie Chen, and Kenneth Joseph. 2021. Who gets what, according to whom? An analysis of fairness perceptions in service allocation. In Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society . 555–565

    2021

  32. [40]

    Moritz Hardt, Eric Price, Nati Srebro, et al. 2016. Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learning. In NeurIPS

    2016

  33. [41]

    Eddie Harmon-Jones and Judson Mills. 2019. An introduction to cognitive dissonance theory and an overview of current perspectives on the theory. In Cognitive Dissonance, Second Edition: Reexamining a Pivotal Theory in Psychology . American Psychological Association

    2019

  34. [42]

    Galen Harrison, Julia Hanson, Christine Jacinto, Julio Ramirez, and Blase Ur. 2020. An empirical study on the perceived fairness of realistic, imperfect machine learning models. In Proceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency . 392–402

    2020

  35. [43]

    Melissa Heikkilä. 2022. Dutch scandal serves as a warning for Europe over risks of using algorithms. Politico. https://tinyurl.com/yaye24zc

    2022

  36. [44]

    Elizabeth Hinton, LaShae Henderson, and Cindy Reed. 2018. An unjust burden: The disparate treatment of Black Americans in the criminal justice system. Vera Institute of Justice 1, 1 (2018), 1–20

    2018

  37. [45]

    Daniel E Ho and Alice Xiang. 2020. Affirmative algorithms: The legal grounds for fairness as awareness. U. Chi. L. Rev. Online (2020), 134

    2020

  38. [46]

    Sun-ha Hong. 2023. Prediction as extraction of discretion. Big Data & Society 10, 1 (2023), 20539517231171053

    2023

  39. [47]

    IFOW. 2022. All the Ways Hiring Algorithms Can Introduce Bias. Institute for the Future of Work. https://tinyurl.com/4xwn6p79

    2022

  40. [48]

    Daniel R Ilgen, Cynthia D Fisher, and M Susan Taylor. 1979. Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of applied psychology 64, 4 (1979), 349

    1979

  41. [49]

    Mackenzie Jorgensen, Hannah Richert, Elizabeth Black, Natalia Criado, and Jose Such. 2023. Not so fair: The impact of presumably fair machine learning models. In Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society . 297–311

    2023

  42. [50]

    John T Jost and Orsolya Hunyady. 2005. Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying ideologies. Current directions in psychological science 14, 5 (2005), 260–265

    2005

  43. [51]

    Maria Kasinidou, Styliani Kleanthous, Pınar Barlas, and Jahna Otterbacher. 2021. I agree with the decision, but they didn’t deserve this: Future developers’ perception of fairness in algorithmic decisions. In Proceedings of the 2021 acm conference on fairness, accountability, ...

    2021

  44. [52]

    Atoosa Kasirzadeh. 2022. Algorithmic fairness and structural injustice: Insights from feminist political philosophy. In Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society . 349–356

    2022

  45. [53]

    Kimon Kieslich, Birte Keller, and Christopher Starke. 2022. Artificial intelligence ethics by design. Evaluating public perception on the importance of ethical design principles of artificial intelligence. Big Data & Society 9, 1 (2022), 20539517221092956

    2022

  46. [54]

    Jon Kleinberg, Sendhil Mullainathan, and Manish Raghavan. 2016. Inherent trade-offs in the fair determination of risk scores. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.05807 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Stephen L Klineberg and David A Kravitz. 2003. Ethnic differences in predictors of support for municipal affirmative action contracting. Social Science Quarterly 84, 2 (2003), 425–440. Laypeople’s Attitudes Towards Fair, Affirmative, and Discriminatory Decision-Making Algorithms 17

    2003

  48. [56]

    Bran Knowles, Jasmine Fledderjohann, John T Richards, and Kush R Varshney. 2023. Trustworthy AI and the Logics of Intersectional Resistance. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency . 172–182

    2023

  49. [57]

    Eric D Knowles, Brian S Lowery, Rosalind M Chow, and Miguel M Unzueta. 2014. Deny, distance, or dismantle? How white Americans manage a privileged identity. Perspectives on Psychological Science 9, 6 (2014), 594–609

    2014

  50. [58]

    Michael W Kraus, Sa-kiera TJ Hudson, and Jennifer A Richeson. 2022. Framing, context, and the misperception of Black–White wealth inequality. Social Psychological and Personality Science 13, 1 (2022), 4–13

    2022

  51. [59]

    Michael W Kraus, Julian M Rucker, and Jennifer A Richeson. 2017. Americans misperceive racial economic equality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, 39 (2017), 10324–10331

    2017

  52. [60]

    David A Kravitz and Judith Platania. 1993. Attitudes and beliefs about affirmative action: Effects of target and of respondent sex and ethnicity. Journal of applied psychology 78, 6 (1993), 928

    1993

  53. [61]

    Emily Kubin, Kurt J Gray, and Christian von Sikorski. 2023. Reducing political dehumanization by pairing facts with personal experiences. Political Psychology 44, 5 (2023), 1119–1140

    2023

  54. [62]

    Emily Kubin, Curtis Puryear, Chelsea Schein, and Kurt Gray. 2021. Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, 6 (2021), e2008389118

    2021

  55. [63]

    Entung Enya Kuo, Michael W Kraus, and Jennifer A Richeson. 2020. High-status exemplars and the misperception of the Asian-White wealth gap. Social Psychological and Personality Science 11, 3 (2020), 397–405

    2020

  56. [64]

    Matt J Kusner, Joshua Loftus, Chris Russell, and Ricardo Silva. 2017. Counterfactual fairness. Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017)

    2017

  57. [65]

    Look! It’s a Computer Program! It’s an Algorithm! It’s AI!

    Markus Langer, Tim Hunsicker, Tina Feldkamp, Cornelius J. König, and Nina Grgić-Hlača. 2021. "Look! It’s a Computer Program! It’s an Algorithm! It’s AI!": Does Terminology Affect Human Perceptions and Evaluations of Intelligent Systems? arXiv:2108.11486 [cs.HC]

    2021 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Markus Langer, Cornelius J König, and Maria Papathanasiou. 2019. Highly automated job interviews: Acceptance under the influence of stakes. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 27, 3 (2019), 217–234

    2019

  59. [67]

    Jinsook Lee, Emma Harvey, Joyce Zhou, Nikhil Garg, Thorsten Joachims, and Rene F Kizilcec. 2024. Algorithms for College Admissions Decision Support: Impacts of Policy Change and Inherent Variability. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.11199 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

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

    2018

  61. [69]

    Min Kyung Lee, Anuraag Jain, Hea Jin Cha, Shashank Ojha, and Daniel Kusbit. 2019. Procedural justice in algorithmic fairness: Leveraging transparency and outcome control for fair algorithmic mediation. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1–26

    2019

  62. [70]

    Bruno Lepri, Nuria Oliver, Emmanuel Letouzé, Alex Pentland, and Patrick Vinck. 2018. Fair, transparent, and accountable algorithmic decision- making processes: The premise, the proposed solutions, and the open challenges. Philosophy & Technology 31, 4 (2018), 611–627

    2018

  63. [71]

    Ting-An Lin and Po-Hsuan Cameron Chen. 2022. Artificial Intelligence in a Structurally Unjust Society. Feminist Philosophy Quarterly 8, 3/4 (2022)

    2022

  64. [72]

    Manuel London. 2003. Job feedback: Giving, seeking, and using feedback for performance improvement . Psychology Press

    2003

  65. [73]

    Charles G Lord, Lee Ross, and Mark R Lepper. 1979. Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of personality and social psychology 37, 11 (1979), 2098

    1979

  66. [74]

    Alexander Michelle. 2010. The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness

    2010

  67. [75]

    Martha Minow. 2023. Equality, Equity, and Algorithms: Learning from Justice Rosalie Abella. University of Toronto Law Journal 73, Supplement 2 (2023), 163–178

    2023

  68. [76]

    Emma Mishel. 2016. Discrimination against queer women in the US workforce: A résumé audit study. Socius 2 (2016), 2378023115621316

    2016

  69. [77]

    Shira Mitchell, Eric Potash, Solon Barocas, Alexander D’Amour, and Kristian Lum. 2021. Algorithmic fairness: Choices, assumptions, and definitions. Annual review of statistics and its application 8, 1 (2021), 141–163

    2021

  70. [78]

    Jessica C Nelson, Glenn Adams, and Phia S Salter. 2013. The Marley hypothesis: Denial of racism reflects ignorance of history. Psychological science 24, 2 (2013), 213–218

    2013

  71. [79]

    Ziad Obermeyer, Brian Powers, Christine Vogeli, and Sendhil Mullainathan. 2019. Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science 366, 6464 (2019), 447–453

    2019

  72. [80]

    Ivuoma Ngozi Onyeador, Sa-kiera Tiarra Jolynn Hudson, Julian Rucker, Natalie Daumeyer, Kate Zendell, Eliette Albrecht, Michael Kraus, and Jennifer Richeson. 2023. The Misperception of Gender Economic Equality. (2023)

    2023

  73. [81]

    Stefan Palan and Christian Schitter. 2018. Prolific. ac—A subject pool for online experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance 17 (2018), 22–27

    2018

  74. [82]

    Dana Pessach and Erez Shmueli. 2022. A review on fairness in machine learning. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 55, 3 (2022), 1–44

    2022

  75. [83]

    Florian Pethig and Julia Kroenung. 2023. Biased humans, (un)biased algorithms? Journal of Business Ethics 183, 3 (2023), 637–652

    2023

  76. [84]

    Emma Pierson. 2017. Gender differences in beliefs about algorithmic fairness. (2017). arXiv:1712.09124

    2017 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Angelisa C Plane, Elissa M Redmiles, Michelle L Mazurek, and Michael Carl Tschantz. 2017. Exploring user perceptions of discrimination in online targeted advertising. In proc. of the USENIX Security Symposium . 935–951

    2017

  78. [86]

    Iyad Rahwan. 2018. Society-in-the-loop: programming the algorithmic social contract. Ethics and information technology 20, 1 (2018), 5–14. 18 Lima et al

    2018

  79. [87]

    Edwin Rios and Chris Stein. 2023. US supreme court rules against affirmative action in Harvard and UNC cases. The Guardian. https: //tinyurl.com/murubuu2

    2023

  80. [88]

    BIES RJ. 1986. Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. Research on negotiation in organizations 1 (1986), 43–55

    1986

  81. [89]

    Ashleigh Shelby Rosette, Rebecca Ponce de Leon, Christy Zhou Koval, and David A Harrison. 2018. Intersectionality: Connecting experiences of gender with race at work. Research in Organizational Behavior 38 (2018), 1–22

    2018

  82. [90]

    Aaron Sankin, Dhruv Mehrotra, Surya Mattu, and Annie Gilbertson. 2021. Crime Prediction Software Promised to Be Free of Biases. New Data Shows It Perpetuates Them. The Markup. https://tinyurl.com/mujc6hvy

    2021

  83. [91]

    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 S...

    2019

  84. [92]

    Nadine Schlicker, Markus Langer, Sonja K Ötting, Kevin Baum, Cornelius J König, and Dieter Wallach. 2021. What to expect from opening up ‘black boxes’? Comparing perceptions of justice between human and automated agents. Computers in Human Behavior 122 (2021), 106837

    2021

  85. [93]

    Brad Sears, Neko Castleberry, Andy Lin, and Christy Mallory. 2024. LGBTQ people’s experiences of workplace discrimination and harassment. (2024)

    2024

  86. [94]

    Donghee Shin. 2020. User perceptions of algorithmic decisions in the personalized AI system: Perceptual evaluation of fairness, accountability, transparency, and explainability. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 64, 4 (2020), 541–565

    2020

  87. [95]

    Donghee Shin and Yong Jin Park. 2019. Role of fairness, accountability, and transparency in algorithmic affordance. Computers in Human Behavior 98 (2019), 277–284

    2019

  88. [96]

    Jim Sidanius, Felicia Pratto, and Lawrence Bobo. 1996. Racism, conservatism, affirmative action, and intellectual sophistication: A matter of principled conservatism or group dominance? Journal of personality and social psychology 70, 3 (1996), 476

    1996

  89. [97]

    Jerel E Slaughter, Evan F Sinar, and Peter D Bachiochi. 2002. Black applicants’ reactions to affirmative action plans: Effects of plan content and previous experience with discrimination. Journal of Applied Psychology 87, 2 (2002), 333

    2002

  90. [98]

    Jessie Smith, Nasim Sonboli, Casey Fiesler, and Robin Burke. 2020. Exploring user opinions of fairness in recommender systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.06461 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Paul M Sniderman and Thomas Piazza. 1993. The scar of race . Harvard University Press

    1993

  92. [100]

    Wonyoung So and Catherine D’Ignazio. 2023. Race-neutral vs race-conscious: Using algorithmic methods to evaluate the reparative potential of housing programs. Big Data & Society 10, 2 (2023), 20539517231210272

    2023

  93. [101]

    Wonyoung So, Pranay Lohia, Rakesh Pimplikar, AE Hosoi, and Catherine D’Ignazio. 2022. Beyond Fairness: Reparative Algorithms to Address Historical Injustices of Housing Discrimination in the US. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transpa...

    2022

  94. [102]

    Leanne S Son Hing, D Ramona Bobocel, and Mark P Zanna. 2002. Meritocracy and opposition to affirmative action: making concessions in the face of discrimination. Journal of personality and social psychology 83, 3 (2002), 493

    2002

  95. [103]

    Megha Srivastava, Hoda Heidari, and Andreas Krause. 2019. Mathematical notions vs. human perception of fairness: A descriptive approach to fairness for machine learning. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining

    2019

  96. [104]

    Christopher Starke, Janine Baleis, Birte Keller, and Frank Marcinkowski. 2022. Fairness perceptions of algorithmic decision-making: A systematic review of the empirical literature. Big Data & Society 9, 2 (2022), 20539517221115189

    2022

  97. [105]

    Anna-Lena Theus. 2023. Striving for Affirmative Algorithmic Futures: How the Social Sciences can Promote more Equitable and Just Algorithmic System Design. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency . 558–568

    2023

  98. [106]

    Donald M Truxillo and Talya N Bauer. 2000. The Roles of Gender and Affirmative Action Attitude in Reactions to Test Score Use Methods 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 30, 9 (2000), 1812–1828

    2000

  99. [107]

    Wade M Vagias. 2006. Likert-type scale response anchors. clemson international institute for tourism. & Research Development, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, Clemson University 4, 5 (2006)

    2006

  100. [108]

    Veniamin Veselovsky, Manoel Horta Ribeiro, Philip Cozzolino, Andrew Gordon, David Rothschild, and Robert West. 2023. Prevalence and prevention of large language model use in crowd work. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.15683 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Sandra Wachter, Brent Mittelstadt, and Chris Russell. 2021. Why fairness cannot be automated: Bridging the gap between EU non-discrimination law and AI. Computer Law & Security Review 41 (2021), 105567

    2021

  102. [110]

    Ruotong Wang, F Maxwell Harper, and Haiyi Zhu. 2020. Factors influencing perceived fairness in algorithmic decision-making: Algorithm outcomes, development procedures, and individual differences. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–14

    2020

  103. [111]

    Julie Weed. 2021. Résumé-Writing Tips to Help You Get Past the A.I. Gatekeepers. New York Times. https://tinyurl.com/yc2hz9tp

    2021

  104. [112]

    Hilde Weerts, Raphaële Xenidis, Fabien Tarissan, Henrik Palmer Olsen, and Mykola Pechenizkiy. 2024. The Neutrality Fallacy: When Algorithmic Fairness Interventions are (Not) Positive Action. In The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency . 2060–2070

    2024

  105. [113]

    Lindsay Weinberg. 2022. Rethinking fairness: an interdisciplinary survey of critiques of hegemonic ML fairness approaches. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 74 (2022), 75–109

    2022

  106. [114]

    Jake Womick, Daniela Goya-Tocchetto, Nicolas Restrepo Ochoa, Carlos Rebollar, Kyra Kapsaskis, Samuel Pratt, B Keith Payne, Stephen Vaisey, and Kurt Gray. [n. d.]. Moral Disagreement across Politics is Explained by Different Assumptions about who is Most Vulnerable to Harm. ([n...

  107. [115]

    Pak-Hang Wong. 2020. Democratizing algorithmic fairness. Philosophy & Technology 33 (2020), 225–244

    2020

  108. [116]

    Muhammad Bilal Zafar, Isabel Valera, Manuel Gomez Rodriguez, and Krishna P Gummadi. 2017. Fairness Beyond Disparate Treatment & Disparate Impact: Learning Classification without Disparate Mistreatment. In Proceedings of the 26th International World Wide Web Conference . 1171–1180

    2017

  109. [117]

    Muhammad Bilal Zafar, Isabel Valera, Manuel Gomez Rogriguez, and Krishna P Gummadi. 2017. Fairness Constraints: Mechanisms for Fair Classification. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics . 962–970

    2017

  110. [118]

    Aurora Zhang and Anette Hosoi. 2024. Structural Interventions and the Dynamics of Inequality. In The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 1014–1030

    2024

  111. [119]

    Marilyn Zhang. 2022. Affirmative Algorithms: Relational Equality as Algorithmic Fairness. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 495–507

    2022

  112. [120]

    Annette Zimmermann and Chad Lee-Stronach. 2022. Proceed with caution. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 52, 1 (2022), 6–25

    2022

  113. [121]

    Anna Zink, Ziad Obermeyer, and Emma Pierson. 2024. Race adjustments in clinical algorithms can help correct for racial disparities in data quality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 121, 34 (2024), e2402267121. 20 Lima et al. A Supplementary Methods Section 3 des...

    2024

  114. [122]

    were free of bias,

    take into consideration the dignity of [job candidates/defendants] (𝛼 = 0.890). • General Fairness: [Hiring/Bail] decisions in my country are fair. A.4.2 Perceptions of the Algorithm: Participants evaluated the algorithm depicted in their randomly assigned vignette using the f...

  115. [123]

    Non-White

    White, 2) Black or African American, 3) Asian, 4) American Indian or Alaska Native, 5) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and 6) Other (with the option to self-describe). Finally, participants also indicated their gender as 1) Female, 2) Male, 3) Non-binary, 4) Transge...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.