Ruled by robots: preference for algorithmic decision makers and perceptions of their choices

IF 1.6 3区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS Public Choice Pub Date : 2024-06-20 DOI:10.1007/s11127-024-01178-w
Marina Chugunova, Wolfgang J. Luhan
{"title":"Ruled by robots: preference for algorithmic decision makers and perceptions of their choices","authors":"Marina Chugunova, Wolfgang J. Luhan","doi":"10.1007/s11127-024-01178-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>As technology-assisted decision-making is becoming more widespread, it is important to understand how the algorithmic nature of the decision maker affects how decisions are perceived by those affected. We use an online experiment to study the preference for human or algorithmic decision makers in redistributive decisions. In particular, we consider whether an algorithmic decision maker will be preferred because of its impartiality. Contrary to previous findings, the majority of participants (over 60%) prefer the algorithm as a decision maker over a human—but this is not driven by concerns over biased decisions. However, despite this preference, the decisions made by humans are regarded more favorably. Subjective ratings of the decisions are mainly driven by participants’ own material interests and fairness ideals. Participants tolerate any explainable deviation between the actual decision and their ideals but react very strongly and negatively to redistribution decisions that are not consistent with any fairness principles.</p>","PeriodicalId":48322,"journal":{"name":"Public Choice","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Choice","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-024-01178-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As technology-assisted decision-making is becoming more widespread, it is important to understand how the algorithmic nature of the decision maker affects how decisions are perceived by those affected. We use an online experiment to study the preference for human or algorithmic decision makers in redistributive decisions. In particular, we consider whether an algorithmic decision maker will be preferred because of its impartiality. Contrary to previous findings, the majority of participants (over 60%) prefer the algorithm as a decision maker over a human—but this is not driven by concerns over biased decisions. However, despite this preference, the decisions made by humans are regarded more favorably. Subjective ratings of the decisions are mainly driven by participants’ own material interests and fairness ideals. Participants tolerate any explainable deviation between the actual decision and their ideals but react very strongly and negatively to redistribution decisions that are not consistent with any fairness principles.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
被机器人统治:对算法决策者的偏好以及对其选择的看法
随着技术辅助决策的普及,了解决策者的算法性质如何影响受影响者对决策的看法非常重要。我们利用在线实验来研究在再分配决策中对人类决策者还是算法决策者的偏好。我们特别考虑了算法决策者是否会因为其公正性而受到青睐。与之前的研究结果相反,大多数参与者(超过 60%)更倾向于选择算法作为决策者,而不是人类--但这并不是因为担心决策存在偏见。不过,尽管有这种偏好,人类做出的决定还是更受青睐。对决策的主观评价主要受参与者自身的物质利益和公平理想的驱动。参与者可以容忍实际决策与他们的理想之间任何可以解释的偏差,但对不符合任何公平原则的再分配决策则反应非常强烈和消极。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Public Choice
Public Choice Multiple-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
18.80%
发文量
65
期刊介绍: Public Choice deals with the intersection between economics and political science. The journal was founded at a time when economists and political scientists became interested in the application of essentially economic methods to problems normally dealt with by political scientists. It has always retained strong traces of economic methodology, but new and fruitful techniques have been developed which are not recognizable by economists. Public Choice therefore remains central in its chosen role of introducing the two groups to each other, and allowing them to explain themselves through the medium of its pages. Officially cited as: Public Choice
期刊最新文献
Does more democracy encourage individualism?: evidence from women’s suffrage in the US Appealing, threatening or nudging? Assessing various communication strategies to promote tax compliance Equilibrium responses to price controls: a supply-chain approach The medieval church as an economic firm? Government incentives and firm location choices
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1