Perceived algorithmic fairness: An empirical study of transparency and anthropomorphism in algorithmic recruiting

65 citations

Abstract

Despite constant efforts of organisations to ensure a fair and transparent personnel selection process, hiring is still characterised by systematic inequality. The potential of algorithms to produce fair and objective decision outcomes has attracted the attention of academic scholars and practitioners as a conceivable alternative to human decision-making. However, applicants do not necessarily consider an objective algorithm as fairer than a human decision maker. This study examines the conditions under which applicants perceive algorithms as fair and establishes a theoretical foundation of algorithmic fairness perceptions. We further propose and investigate transparency and anthropomorphism interventions as strategies to actively shape these fairness perceptions. In an online application scenario with eight experimental groups (*N* = 801), we analyse determinants for algorithmic fairness perceptions and the impact of the proposed interventions. Embedded in a stimulus-organism-response framework and drawing from organisational justice theory, our study reveals four justice dimensions (procedural, distributive, interpersonal, and informational justice) that determine algorithmic fairness perceptions. The results further show that transparency and anthropomorphism interventions mainly affect dimensions of interpersonal and informational justice, highlighting the importance of algorithmic fairness perceptions as critical determinants for individual choices.

65
Citations
Research
Paper Only
Relevant for

Study specs

An online application scenario with eight experimental groups analyzing fairness perceptions using a stimulus-organism-response framework and organizational justice theory.

Sample Size
N=801
Study Type
Experimental Study
Year
2024
Human Data Platform
Prolific

Measured Outcomes

Perceptions of algorithmic fairness based on justice dimensions (procedural, distributive, interpersonal, and informational justice) and the impact of transparency and anthropomorphism interventions.

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.