Algorithmic surveillance and workers' compliance: The role of trust, privacy concerns, and fairness in online crowdwork

Abstract

How do workers decide to comply with, alter, or resist algorithmic surveillance? We argue that decontextualization is a key, yet overlooked, mechanism that shapes workers’ responses to algorithmic surveillance. Research has widely critiqued algorithmic surveillance, focusing on diminished worker control and agency. However, the control-resistance mechanisms related to algorithmic surveillance are undertheorized and underexplored. We draw on socio-technical systems theory and micro-level legitimacy to examine mechanisms of surveillance and resistance in online crowdwork. Our findings, based on three-wave data from 435 European online crowdworkers, show that perceived algorithmic surveillance undermines trust and fairness, while increasing privacy concerns, which in turn inform workers’ intentions to comply, alter, or resist algorithmic surveillance. Perceived decontextualization moderates these relationships, exacerbating the adverse effects on trust and fairness while mitigating the effects on privacy concerns. These outcomes extend the view that individual outcomes are shaped by social and technical factors only by demonstrating that perceived decontextualization and micro-level legitimacy judgments—that is, trust, privacy concerns, and fairness—are important socio-technical mechanisms that also impact workers’ compliance. By highlighting the overlooked role of decontextualization in shaping resistance and compliance, this study challenges dominant control-centric narratives and offers a new lens on algorithmic governance.

--
Citations
Survey
Paper Only
Relevant for

Study specs

Three-wave survey data analysis of European online crowdworkers, analyzed through socio-technical systems theory and micro-level legitimacy frameworks.

Discipline
Social Science
Sample Size
N=435
Study Type
Survey Research
Year
2025
Human Data Platform
Prolific

Measured Outcomes

The effects of algorithmic surveillance on trust, privacy concerns, fairness, and workers' compliance, alteration, or resistance, with a focus on the moderating role of perceived decontextualization.

Peer Review & Critical Discussion

3 threads

Potential Selection Bias in 2023 Cohort

DSJDr. Sarah J.
Verified PhD Candidate
12 replies

The participant pool shows a concerning overrepresentation of users from high-income demographics. Looking at Table 3, we can see that 78% of respondents had annual incomes above $75k, which significantly limits the generalizability of these findings to broader populations.

2 hours ago

Non-naive Participants Issue

MCM. Chen (OpenAI)
Data Scientist
8 replies

I've noticed a methodological concern regarding participant naivety. Given that Prolific users often complete multiple studies, there's a real risk that participants had prior exposure to similar experimental paradigms, which could confound the results.

5 hours ago

RLHF Applicability to This Study Design

PRWProf. R. Williams
Verified Researcher
15 replies

The implications for RLHF training pipelines are understated. If we accept the authors' conclusions about preference stability, this has direct consequences for how we should structure reward model training. The temporal decay effect described in Section 4.2 is particularly relevant.

1 day ago

Verify your expertise to join discussion

Create an account and verify your credentials to participate in peer discussions.