Algorithmic versus human surveillance leads to lower perceptions of autonomy and increased resistance

Abstract

Past research indicates that people tend to react adversely to surveillance, but does it matter if advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence conduct surveillance rather than humans? Across four experiments (Study 1, N = 107; Study 2, N = 157; Study 3, N = 117; Study 4, N = 814), we examined how participants reacted to monitoring and evaluation by human or algorithmic surveillance when recalling instances of surveillance from their lives (Study 1), generating ideas (Studies 2 and 3), or imagining working in a call center (Study 4). Our results revealed that participants subjected to algorithmic (v. human) surveillance perceived they had less autonomy (Studies 1, 3, and 4), criticized the surveillance more (Studies 1-3), performed worse (Studies 2 and 3), and reported greater intentions to resist (Studies 1 and 4). Framing the purpose of the algorithmic surveillance as developmental, and thus informational, as opposed to evaluative, mitigated the perception of decreased autonomy and level of resistance (Study 4). When recalling or experiencing monitoring by algorithms rather than humans, people perceive lower autonomy and react more negatively. However, framing algorithmic surveillance as informational instead of evaluative mitigates this effect.