Dimensions of diversity in human perceptions of algorithmic fairness
Abstract
A growing number of oversight boards and regulatory bodies seek to monitor and govern algorithms that make decisions about people's lives. Prior work has explored how people believe algorithmic decisions should be made, but there is little understanding of how individual factors like sociodemographics or direct experience with a decision-making scenario may affect their ethical views. We take a step toward filling this gap by exploring how people's perceptions of one aspect of procedural algorithmic fairness (the fairness of using particular features in an algorithmic decision) relate to their (i) demographics (age, education, gender, race, political views) and (ii) personal experiences with the algorithmic decision-making scenario. We find that political views and personal experience with the algorithmic decision context significantly influence perceptions about the fairness of using different features for bail decision-making. Drawing on our results, we discuss the implications for stakeholder engagement and algorithmic oversight including the need to consider multiple dimensions of diversity in composing oversight and regulatory bodies.
Study specs
Explored perceptions of procedural fairness using surveys to assess the influence of demographics and personal experiences.
- Authors
- N Grgić-Hlača,G Lima,A Weller
- Institution
- Max Planck Institute,École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne,University of Cambridge,The Alan Turing Institute
- Discipline
- Social Science,Artificial Intelligence
- Study Type
- Survey Research
- Year
- 2025
- Human Data Platform
- Prolific
- Source
- View Source DOI Google Scholar
Measured Outcomes
Impact of demographics (age, education, gender, race, political views) and personal experience on perceptions of fairness of algorithmic feature use in bail decisions.
Peer Review & Critical Discussion
Potential Selection Bias in 2023 Cohort
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.
Non-naive Participants Issue
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.
RLHF Applicability to This Study Design
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.
Verify your expertise to join discussion
Create an account and verify your credentials to participate in peer discussions.